The shield spell shouldn't work with armor or shields [Archive]

Witty Username

2023-05-29, 09:55 PM

It's not a bad spell, but I think people who get upset with it ignore its drawbacks and costs.

My opinion of silvery barbs in a nutshell.

Sounds like your table (like ours when I'm DMing) doesn't roll open. That makes a big difference to how effective this spell is; a lot of people I hear say this spell is OP are assuming 100% success rate to at least the triggering attack.

Eh, my table has gone both ways on the subject and shield seems to have done well in both environments. I think it might matter if you call shield before the roll is made, but that is a bit beyond raw, and still can be a concern after a round or two of combat.

AC already suffers as a defense option as you progress through the levels. A change like this would all but guarantee it becomes worthless. When an enemy has an attack bonus in the teens, you need every last bit you can scrape together and there are so few ways to break 20 as-is.
I don't know about you, but my last high level game we could consistently get an AC of 30 with Shield (we had a Paladin with +3 armor & magic shield and swords bard with defensive florish, both took multiclass dips for shield and we were very difficult to damage with attacks at all).

Mongobear

2023-05-29, 10:33 PM

Blade Ward, do you mean?
Because using it as a reaction would be rather too good.

Oh, Derp... yeah that. The one that gives resistance.

You could even "buff" it and make it work vs everything, and it'd be fine.

5eNeedsDarksun

2023-05-29, 10:50 PM

My opinion of silvery barbs in a nutshell.

Eh, my table has gone both ways on the subject and shield seems to have done well in both environments. I think it might matter if you call shield before the roll is made, but that is a bit beyond raw, and still can be a concern after a round or two of combat.

I don't know about you, but my last high level game we could consistently get an AC of 30 with Shield (we had a Paladin with +3 armor & magic shield and swords bard with defensive florish, both took multiclass dips for shield and we were very difficult to damage with attacks at all).

I didn't say it wasn't good either way. Players are definitely thinking a bit more after it's accomplished zip all a few times though.

Dork_Forge

2023-05-29, 10:53 PM

I agree with the sentiment, but I'd rather see it handled in a way that being a Wizard or Sorcerer locks you out of doing it in armor. That way EK and AT can still pull it off, Artificers can still have it as a subclass spell, and it prevents MCing to do it.

Toadkiller

2023-05-29, 11:37 PM

It should already require a free hand - it has a somatic component. If you take a feat to get around that then that’s your call. It’s not a *bad* call, but you are giving up other things.

Amechra

2023-05-29, 11:52 PM

I think it should just be rolled into Mage Armor.

Like, I dunno, it normally sets your AC to 13+Dex, but you can "flare" it as a reaction to make your AC 18+Dex for a turn.

sithlordnergal

2023-05-30, 02:20 AM

I don't know about you, but my last high level game we could consistently get an AC of 30 with Shield (we had a Paladin with +3 armor & magic shield and swords bard with defensive florish, both took multiclass dips for shield and we were very difficult to damage with attacks at all).

Yup, and by that level most enemies have an attack bonus in the mid-teens, usually around +14 to +16, and need a to roll about a 14-16 or higher to hit. That's actually pretty similar to what CR 1/2 NPCs would need to roll to hit a level 1 Fighter with Chain Mail and a regular Shield at level 1. So the system is working in regards to tanking. Unless you also take issue with the 1/2 CR NPCs missing level 1 Fighters.

---

So, I fully agree with Pex and Segev. It doesn;t need to be nerfed, it doesn't need to be changed. There are really only two ways to "tank" in 5e, and that's with your HP or your AC. Classes that tank via HP usually have ways to mitigate damage on a hit. It could be Resistance, like what the Barbarian has, or multiple HP pools, like the Moon Druid.

Tanking via AC is a lot harder, because the classes that use AC don't really have many effective ways to mitigate damage they do take. They do have some ways, such as Lay on Hands or Second Wind, but that's a far cry from the Barbarian's Rage or the Moon Druid's Wild Shape. They mitigate damage by not being hit. The problem is there aren't many ways to boost your AC outside of magic items, which is entirely in the hands of the DM. The max AC you can get without magic items is 26, via Plate Armor, a Shield, the Defense Fighting Style, and the Shield spell.

26 AC is AMAZING...at low and medium levels. It stops being impressive when you start fighting NPCs with a +14 or higher to hit, at which point the DM only needs a 12. And keep in mind, the 26 is just with the Shield spell. Without it, the DM needs to roll a 7 or higher to hit that base 21 AC. Not really much of a tank if it takes a 7 to hit you. Now, magic items can make up for this, but again, that's entirely on the DM's side. They can decide to give you jack ****. Like it or not, the Shield spell is necessary to let players tank things at higher levels.

Hence why it shouldn't be changed.

EDIT: A question for those DMs who think it should be nerfed? What is your answer for classes like Fighters or Paladins that use their AC to tank hits, but are stuck with an AC that only requires a 10 on the d20 to hit them? Unlike a class like the Barbarian, they can't mitigate the damage they're taking once they're hit. Taking an average of 59 points of damage in one single round is gonna take away a good chunk of their HP. Even with high Con and d10 hit dice. Should those classes just "suck it up" and be k.o.'d? And I don't care if "You don't normally run in higher tiers", that has no bearing on the question.

Lord Vukodlak

2023-05-30, 03:21 AM

I'm going to throw my hat in with those who say the spell is fine the way it is.

I don't know about you, but my last high level game we could consistently get an AC of 30 with Shield (we had a Paladin with +3 armor & magic shield and swords bard with defensive florish, both took multiclass dips for shield and we were very difficult to damage with attacks at all).
The problem was the +X shield and armor not the shield spell.

Segev

2023-05-30, 03:39 AM

Sounds like your table (like ours when I'm DMing) doesn't roll open. That makes a big difference to how effective this spell is; a lot of people I hear say this spell is OP are assuming 100% success rate to at least the triggering attack.

Even then, the time to use it comes up fairly rarely. The attack has to be between zero and four higher than your AC, and not a crit. And using it is a first level spell slot, so if it is coming up a lot, you're burning through it fast. The saving grace of it lasting until your next turn is nice, but spam attacks mean more chances for crits or other lucky high rolls, so it's nice but again, not that overpowered.

I think people tend to assume it us just a flat +5 to AC that is always on. It isn't. And reactions aren't free, especially as you break into tier two.

Dork_Forge

2023-05-30, 03:44 AM

The problem was the +X shield and armor not the shield spell.

You don't need DM-given magic items to hit 30 or more with Shield though.

- A Bladesinger with Mage Armor, Shield, and Bladesong is hitting 28 with the basic optimisation of raising stats that matter. Spitting distance of 30 which they can hit with simple build considerations.

- An AC orientated Paladin is hitting 21 with normal heavy armor+a shield+Defense, easily hitting 28 with Shield of Faith and Shield, again spitting distance to 30.

- A Forge Cleric can replicate the above but with +1 armor they made themselves and the option of dipping or a feat for Defense.

There's at least two races (Warforged and Simic Hybrid) that give a flat +1 AC to however you're calculating it.

Artificers warp things by being able to ramp their own AC to ridiculous heights but they can just as easily infuse the gear of an AC bumping character, the same can be said of a Forge Cleric.

AC is already easy to get nice and high in 5E without the DM handing out AC boosting items. The fact that AC boosting items are relatively plentiful in the grand scheme of items is just an additional factor, not the route of the problem.

However, a +5 will always be massive in bounded accuracy and is particularly problematic because it inherently stacks with many/most AC optimisation and is trivial to access as a 1st level spell.

The point of the Shield spell is to compensate for the Wizard and Sorcerers poor inherent defenses, but trying to do stuff like this with spells will always end up badly, with the system balance as a whole distorted.

Dhavaer

2023-05-30, 04:21 AM

I don't agree with suggestions Shield should scale with proficiency bonus or casting ability: it's currently best at higher levels due to spell slots being so precious at lower levels. I think making it give a flat 20 AC makes it effective for its intended purpose (temporary protection for robe-wearers) while being useless for making bladesingers and eldritch knights invulnerable to non-crits for a round.

Anymage

2023-05-30, 04:42 AM

EDIT: A question for those DMs who think it should be nerfed? What is your answer for classes like Fighters or Paladins that use their AC to tank hits, but are stuck with an AC that only requires a 10 on the d20 to hit them? Unlike a class like the Barbarian, they can't mitigate the damage they're taking once they're hit. Taking an average of 59 points of damage in one single round is gonna take away a good chunk of their HP. Even with high Con and d10 hit dice. Should those classes just "suck it up" and be k.o.'d? And I don't care if "You don't normally run in higher tiers", that has no bearing on the question.

The first issue here is that Fighters and Paladins don't get Shield natively. Unless you think that the only tanky characters should be Eldritch Knights and characters who jump through hoops to access the Shield spell otherwise, that doesn't quite track. Plus at that point it's the heavy armor wizards/clerics who will have more spell slots to enjoy it than the fighters with a minor dip.

The second issue is that +5 to AC greatly increases the difference between characters with the Shield spell and those without. If fighters and paladins actually had better mechanics to keep enemies on them/punish the enemies for going elsewhere that'd be one thing. Absent that, your options are enemies tuned to hit the characters with Shield (and thus having a much easier time hitting characters who don't have the spell), or enemies tuned around the characters who don't. That's a lot hinging on access to one spell.

Even then, the time to use it comes up fairly rarely. The attack has to be between zero and four higher than your AC, and not a crit. And using it is a first level spell slot, so if it is coming up a lot, you're burning through it fast. The saving grace of it lasting until your next turn is nice, but spam attacks mean more chances for crits or other lucky high rolls, so it's nice but again, not that overpowered.

I think people tend to assume it us just a flat +5 to AC that is always on. It isn't. And reactions aren't free, especially as you break into tier two.

The only competition I see for Shield on a regular basis are Endure Elements and Counterspell. Counterspell has had enough discussion about how game warping it is, so "it competes with counterspell" is not an argument in favor of anything. Endure Elements is a reasonable spell, but if you take one big hit of elemental energy you're unlikely to take another one later in the round while attacks against AC are fairly common. It's telling that all three are about negating a move made against you instead of anything else. (Edit: Also Silvery Barbs. But that's continuing with the theme of reactions that use a low level spell slot to neuter someone else's action instead of doing something proactive for yourself.)

The other main issue is something that's gone back as far as I can remember in D&D. In theory spellcasters are balanced by having to stretch their resources out over multiple encounters per day, but in practice five minute workdays are incredibly common. In these situations you tend to run out of useful action bearing rounds before you run out of spell slots, so they do tend to be applicable every round instead of something judiciously portioned out.

sithlordnergal

2023-05-30, 05:05 AM

The first issue here is that Fighters and Paladins don't get Shield natively. Unless you think that the only tanky characters should be Eldritch Knights and characters who jump through hoops to access the Shield spell otherwise, that doesn't quite track. Plus at that point it's the heavy armor wizards/clerics who will have more spell slots to enjoy it than the fighters with a minor dip.

The second issue is that +5 to AC greatly increases the difference between characters with the Shield spell and those without. If fighters and paladins actually had better mechanics to keep enemies on them/punish the enemies for going elsewhere that'd be one thing. Absent that, your options are enemies tuned to hit the characters with Shield (and thus having a much easier time hitting characters who don't have the spell), or enemies tuned around the characters who do. That's a lot hinging on access to one spell.

You're right that neither class gets Shield natively, the problem is that higher CR creatures seem tuned to hit characters with Shield. Like...Balors have a +14 to hit. That's a pretty high attack bonus, and they're only CR 19. Which kind of leaves those classes in a situation where they have to rely on Shield. And by nerfing Shield, or making it so they don't benefit from it, they don't have anything they can really do to defend themselves. At least not on their own. Not only that, but when you start looking at those insanely high ACs, they're not as crazy as you might think in high tier games. You end up with around the same chance of being hit that a level 1 Fighter with Chain Mail, a Shield, and the Defense Fighting Style has of being hit by a Goblin.

Like...if you have an AC of 30 thanks to shield, and you're fighting something with a +14 to hit, they need to roll a 16. If you start as a Fighter and go all in on Defense, you'll have a 19 AC, and a Goblin will need to roll a 15 to hit you. So you end up blocking about the same number of attacks.

I will admit, it is a major issue in Tier 2. Your AC will spike well above the norm, and NPCs will need a crit to hit. But I feel like that's balanced by the fact you have far more limited spell slots in T2, especially if you multiclassed for Shield.

Amnestic

2023-05-30, 05:29 AM

You're right that neither class gets Shield natively, the problem is that higher CR creatures seem tuned to hit characters with Shield. Like...Balors have a +14 to hit. That's a pretty high attack bonus, and they're only CR 19. Which kind of leaves those classes in a situation where they have to rely on Shield. And by nerfing Shield, or making it so they don't benefit from it, they don't have anything they can really do to defend themselves.

At least not on their own. Not only that, but when you start looking at those insanely high ACs, they're not as crazy as you might think in high tier games. You end up with around the same chance of being hit that a level 1 Fighter with Chain Mail, a Shield, and the Defense Fighting Style has of being hit by a Goblin.

Like...if you have an AC of 30 thanks to shield, and you're fighting something with a +14 to hit, they need to roll a 16. If you start as a Fighter and go all in on Defense, you'll have a 19 AC, and a Goblin will need to roll a 15 to hit you. So you end up blocking about the same number of attacks.

A CR 1 creature (Bugbear) deals almost 100% of your of your 1st level fighter's HP (11 average, ~12-13 max HP).
A CR 19 Balor deals about 15-20% of a hypothetical 19th level fighter's HP (~34 damage per hit, ~175max HP). Even if all three attacks hit, that's still capping out at ~60% of your total.

I would argue that it's fine for AC to be less effective as you level up if the example is CR=Level foes (like the hypothetical Balor), because you should have a larger health pool (and additional features/resources) to absorb that damage. As you get more resources from leveling up, encounters need to tax them more, and dealing more HP damage (due to AC not scaling as much) is one very simple way to do that.

stoutstien

2023-05-30, 05:33 AM

I have 2 problems with the shield spell.

The first is it that attack rolls are just too easily manipulated and they are all or nothing the majority of the time. It unnecessarily increases the length of combat and removes the thematic niche of being the one who can take a lot of punishment.

The second is it makes no sense. You can't have an avoidance feature that triggers after a hit that retroactively prevents the hit in the first place.

Neither are large enough concerns to warrant changing it but I don't think it's good design.

Anymage

2023-05-30, 06:29 AM

You're right that neither class gets Shield natively, the problem is that higher CR creatures seem tuned to hit characters with Shield. Like...Balors have a +14 to hit. That's a pretty high attack bonus, and they're only CR 19. Which kind of leaves those classes in a situation where they have to rely on Shield. And by nerfing Shield, or making it so they don't benefit from it, they don't have anything they can really do to defend themselves. At least not on their own. Not only that, but when you start looking at those insanely high ACs, they're not as crazy as you might think in high tier games. You end up with around the same chance of being hit that a level 1 Fighter with Chain Mail, a Shield, and the Defense Fighting Style has of being hit by a Goblin.

Like...if you have an AC of 30 thanks to shield, and you're fighting something with a +14 to hit, they need to roll a 16. If you start as a Fighter and go all in on Defense, you'll have a 19 AC, and a Goblin will need to roll a 15 to hit you. So you end up blocking about the same number of attacks.

An AC focused high level fighter can reasonably assume 28 without too much hassle and without consumables or external assistance. (+3 plate, +3 shield, defense style, ring of protection.) The balor hits that on a 14+. Throw in the Shield spell and you're looking at a 19+, which is a lot for high level characters who can spam slots at it.

Put him next to a rogue or a great weapon fighter, however, and the flaw becomes more apparent. The rogue goes from an assumed 14 AC (Leather armor, +3 Dex) to 20 (+3 studded leather, +5 Dex), while the great weapon fighter goes from 16 (chain) to 21 (+3 plate). There's nothing compelling the balor to not turn around and shred either of them if they do more damage than the defense fighter. And the solution to the lack of scaling otherwise shouldn't involve mandating that all rogues have to become ATs and all fighters have to become EKs, and hiding the fix somewhere on the wizard spell list.

Chronic

2023-05-30, 07:08 AM

The spell Shield is fine, on an unarmored character that isn't wearing halfplate and a shield, then it's terrible.

IMO this should be an (optional rule): the shield spell shouldn't stack with actual armor and shields.

I've home brewed this, 2 versions of the spell, one were armor and shield are incompatible, for most casters, and heavy shield, for eldritch knights, that allows the caster to wear armor and shield.

DruidAlanon

2023-05-30, 07:20 AM

I'm going to throw my hat in with those who say the spell is fine the way it is.

Same here.

As long as all players use roughly same levels of optimisation it shouldn't matter. Problems arise when DMs allow vastly different levels of optimisation, where one player plays a chronurgy wizard with proficiency in medium armor & shield, and another plays a sun soul monk. Even though I've been guilty of trying to access shield with every single player i"ve ever made in 5e.

Incidentally, as mentioned previously, using such spells effectively becomes less trivial when the DM doesn't show his rolls.

KorvinStarmast

2023-05-30, 07:59 AM

The first issue here is that Fighters and Paladins don't get Shield natively.

I have always felt that the paladin and fighter got short changed on the Bonus Action features, but should they not have as a basic class feature a parry (versus a single attack) Reaction? (Kind of like the feature that Gladiator NPC has?)

Dr.Samurai

2023-05-30, 08:24 AM

The spell Shield is fine, on an unarmored character that isn't wearing halfplate and a shield, then it's terrible.

IMO this should be an (optional rule): the shield spell shouldn't stack with actual armor and shields.
Great idea.

I also agree with just plain getting rid of it.

I have always felt that the paladin and fighter got short changed on the Bonus Action features, but should they not have as a basic class feature a parry (versus a single attack) Reaction? (Kind of like the feature that Gladiator NPC has?)
1000% yes.

Re: Balors and other monsters have high attack modifiers

This means to me that casters should try and avoid being in melee, not that we need to make sure they have 1st level spells that can let them tank hits from high CR enemies.

Keltest

2023-05-30, 08:50 AM

This means to me that casters should try and avoid being in melee, not that we need to make sure they have 1st level spells that can let them tank hits from high CR enemies.

Honestly, burning a reaction and a spell slot is probably a better result from attacking the wizard than dealing hit point damage unless the wizard is extremely squishy.

My problem with the Shield spell is how it lasts beyond the single attack, which makes it more effective at defending you than just about any other reaction based ability.

Damon_Tor

2023-05-30, 08:58 AM

Shield
1st level abjuration spell
Casting Time: Reaction when you are hit by an attack or targeted by magic missile
Components: S or M (a shield you are wearing worth at least 1sp)
Duration: Until the end of your next turn

Effects: If you cast this spell using its somatic component, you create a shimmering barrier of force in your free hand which lasts for the duration of the spell, a magical shield with which you are proficient: you don this shield as a part of the reaction used to cast this spell. The shield grants you a +3 bonus to your AC while you are wearing it.

If you cast it with its material component, instead the barrier augments your existing shield, increasing your shield's AC bonus by 1 for the duration of the spell.

Either way, you are immune to the effects of magic missile while wearing a shield under the effects of this spell. The spell ends early if you are not wearing the shield, or if you chose to end it (no action required)

At Higher Levels: when cast using a spell slot of 2nd level, increase the AC bonus of this spell by 1. When cast using a spell slot of 3rd level or higher, increase the AC bonus of the spell by 2.

This is both a general nerf to the spell (+3 to AC down from +5 using a first level slot) and a larger specific nerf to using it with an existing shield (it only gives +1 in that case). However, if you do have a shield already equipped the ability to cast it using the shield as the material component is a QoL Improvement. I also extended the duration until the end of your next turn (not the start) which will help you avoid opportunity attacks if you need to get out of melee.

Witty Username

2023-05-30, 09:44 AM

I have always felt that the paladin and fighter got short changed on the Bonus Action features, but should they not have as a basic class feature a parry (versus a single attack) Reaction? (Kind of like the feature that Gladiator NPC has?)

Maybe something like defensive duelist but built-in? Ooh, and you could flavor and balance a bit to the specific class, kinda like how monk can deflect ranged attacks.

I feel like intercept is also a good starting model.

Mongobear

2023-05-30, 10:08 AM

Maybe something like defensive duelist but built-in? Ooh, and you could flavor and balance a bit to the specific class, kinda like how monk can deflect ranged attacks.

I feel like intercept is also a good starting model.

Doesnt Battlemaster have almost exactly this as one of their maneuvers? If not, a melee version of the Monk's arrow deflection could make sense. Reduce an attacks damage by a dice roll, and if it is reduced to 0, you get a free melee weapon attack against that enemy as part of the same reaction.

DruidAlanon

2023-05-30, 10:17 AM

This means to me that casters should try and avoid being in melee, not that we need to make sure they have 1st level spells that can let them tank hits from high CR enemies.

Shield can be activated vs sharpshooters as well.

Dr.Samurai

2023-05-30, 10:21 AM

Honestly, burning a reaction and a spell slot is probably a better result from attacking the wizard than dealing hit point damage unless the wizard is extremely squishy.
Maybe, but what is considered "extremely squishy"? Assuming a Con 14 (Int/Dex/feats priority), a balor's longsword/whip attacks + fire aura is over half of a wizard's hit points, and triggers 3 separate Concentration checks. Even at Con 16 this still leaves you at half hit points. If the balor isn't alone, that's not a great place to be from 1 enemy action.

At these levels, a wizard might also be able to use Shield at-will, so there is no resource cost but the Reaction used.

My problem with the Shield spell is how it lasts beyond the single attack, which makes it more effective at defending you than just about any other reaction based ability.
Agreed.

Amnestic

2023-05-30, 10:23 AM

Shield can be activated vs sharpshooters as well.

There aren't a lot of ranged weapon attack enemies at high level. There are some, but they're definitely more rare compared to the melee bruisers; ranged effects at higher level will typically target saves instead. I believe the highest CR one on the SRD other than Solar (which, as a celestial, are rarely enemies) is the Erinyes at CR12 (+7 to attack rolls with their longbow).

I'm sure there are more of them in the expanded monster lists, but I'd expect the proportion to be generally the same.

DruidAlanon

2023-05-30, 10:30 AM

There aren't a lot of ranged weapon attack enemies at high level. There are some, but they're definitely more rare compared to the melee bruisers; ranged effects at higher level will typically target saves instead. I believe the highest CR one on the SRD other than Solar (which, as a celestial, are rarely enemies) is the Erinyes at CR12 (+7 to attack rolls with their longbow).

I'm sure there are more of them in the expanded monster lists, but I'd expect the proportion to be generally the same.

Indeed. Perhaps high levels are not so important, considering most campaigns start at Tier 1 and shield is a 1st lvl spell. It's also up to the DM to generate enemy NPCs with good ranged attacks. If the party has spellcasters with 19-24AC then CR is not exactly helpful when picking encounters.

Dork_Forge

2023-05-30, 10:33 AM

Doesnt Battlemaster have almost exactly this as one of their maneuvers? If not, a melee version of the Monk's arrow deflection could make sense. Reduce an attacks damage by a dice roll, and if it is reduced to 0, you get a free melee weapon attack against that enemy as part of the same reaction.

The Parry maneuver is a damage reduction, the only AC-improving maneuver is Evasive Footwork, which only applies whilst moving, and Bait and Switch which is very situational but applies to you and an ally.

Indeed. Perhaps high levels are not so important, considering most campaigns start at Tier 1 and shield is a 1st lvl spell. It's also up to the DM to generate enemy NPCs with good ranged attacks. If the party has spellcasters with 19-24AC then CR is not exactly helpful when picking encounters.

I get the sentiment, but it's also a kind of circular logic. The game should be designed evenly throughout, the fact that when you go past level 10 or so support becomes far more wonky and design begins to tear at the seams is part of why people don't go higher.

PhoenixPhyre

2023-05-30, 10:38 AM

A thought: high cr enemies are supposed to hit quite frequently. And yes, that means the wizard shouldn't be anywhere near them if they can avoid it.

On the flip side, the game (at base) does not expect you to regularly fight high cr (cr > 15) creatures. Basically everything over CR 12 is a boss monster (or mini boss). The median encounter is closer to cr 10.

Furthermore, if AC really is critical... Having the only way to really boost it be a spell on really one main list (arcane/wizard/sorcerer) is... Yeah. Suboptimal in my opinion. Especially when that list is attached to what are supposed to be glass canons (or otherwise limited survivability classes). It's a design smell and doesn't seem like it's supposed to be that way (hiding a critical tool in an unexpected place).

DruidAlanon

2023-05-30, 10:41 AM

I get the sentiment, but it's also a kind of circular logic. The game should be designed evenly throughout, the fact that when you go past level 10 or so support becomes far more wonky and design begins to tear at the seams is part of why people don't go higher.

I agree. But how does this support the shield nerf? As Amnestic points out, at higher levels it is ranged vs saves.

Dork_Forge

2023-05-30, 11:15 AM

I agree. But how does this support the shield nerf? As Amnestic points out, at higher levels it is ranged vs saves.

I was mainly focused on the point itself, but I don't really agree with that either. Since it has already come up I'll use the Balor as an example:

It's CR 19 and it looks like there's consensus that it's a 'melee bruiser' and that it just means that a caster has to stay away from it. But in reality?

It has an 80 ft. fly speed and the whip has a 30 ft. reach with a 25 ft. pull that most casters will fail the save against. It primarily makes melee attacks, but its range is still excellent to the point where casters really can't play keep-away with it, but it could potentially do so to them.

The 120 ft. teleport action reinforces this and since it has an aura and a nasty death burst, using an action to get amongst the party isn't really a waste like it could be for other creatures.

Zariel is the boss of a module and a CR 26 that could be described as a melee bruiser too, but with 150 ft. fly speed and 10 ft. reach on her attacks.

Shield is always going to be relevant because PCs are always going to encounter attack rolls and with a +5 in bounded accuracy, it's still potent enough to matter.

As an anecdote one of my games is currently 15th level, the Paladin was able to use Shield to crank his AC to 26, this made it extremely unlikely for mobs to hit, but also makes what should otherwise be mostly successful hits from the boss miss more often than they should. 26 isn't that high considering the potential of AC optimising, and a 1st level slot and reaction for full round +5 AC is a minute cost at those levels, it's not really that steep at early levels since the alternative is probably death.

Bounded accuracy in 5e isn't really built to handle this kind of boost in the scope of the whole game, I'd wager they just looked at the possibility of Mage Armor + max Dex + Shield and thought it was very unlikely, but a 23 AC was acceptable for the cost.

Afterall, feats and multiclassing are 'optional' and every subclass that gives access to Shield came years after the core books.

Amnestic

2023-05-30, 11:27 AM

Shield is always going to be relevant because PCs are always going to encounter attack rolls and with a +5 in bounded accuracy, it's still potent enough to matter.

As an anecdote one of my games is currently 15th level, the Paladin was able to use Shield to crank his AC to 26, this made it extremely unlikely for mobs to hit, but also makes what should otherwise be mostly successful hits from the boss miss more often than they should. 26 isn't that high considering the potential of AC optimising, and a 1st level slot and reaction for full round +5 AC is a minute cost at those levels, it's not really that steep at early levels since the alternative is probably death.

Bounded accuracy in 5e isn't really built to handle this kind of boost in the scope of the whole game, I'd wager they just looked at the possibility of Mage Armor + max Dex + Shield and thought it was very unlikely, but a 23 AC was acceptable for the cost.

Afterall, feats and multiclassing are 'optional' and every subclass that gives access to Shield came years after the core books.

The paladin can only do that 4/day until they start dipping into higher level slots, I'm not sure it's a 'minute cost' assuming you're doing more than one encounter.

Since the system is set up so that you can't shield every round (unless you're spending literally every spell slot on that), shielding shouldn't be expected. We can therefore assume that non-shield ACs are what the system is playing with as standard.

So our hypothetical 19th level wizard, assuming they rammed all their ASIs into Int and then Dex, and didn't drop any more into Con, is probably looking at capping at 18 AC for all the non-bladesingers/war wizards out there. That's not far off of the rogue who'll be floating 17-20, depending on magic armour, or the unarmoured monk at with 20.

I don't believe AC25 or higher is the default assumption for how the game is built, even at high level. Yes, you can reach it, if you try to, if you build to it or stock yourself out with legendary magic items, but typically the game seems to be expecting a number closer to 14-18 to start with, and then 18-21 to end with.

Monster attack rolls scale a lot more, because you're meant to be getting hit and healing (and using resistances to mitigate) at later levels instead of dodging all the attacks.

Mastikator

2023-05-30, 11:29 AM

Honestly, burning a reaction and a spell slot is probably a better result from attacking the wizard than dealing hit point damage unless the wizard is extremely squishy.

My problem with the Shield spell is how it lasts beyond the single attack, which makes it more effective at defending you than just about any other reaction based ability.

Actually if it applied to only one single attack it would suddenly become perfectly balanced.

Dork_Forge

2023-05-30, 11:44 AM

The paladin can only do that 4/day until they start dipping into higher level slots, I'm not sure it's a 'minute cost' assuming you're doing more than one encounter..

You only need it on a hit and when you're worried about the consequences of being hit. The Bard in the same game has Shield from his Divine Soul dip, but even though he has some Warlock slots he still judges whether or not he actually needs to Shield.

And given what you'd be using 1st level slots for otherwise and the potential consequences, yeah it's a minute cost.

Since the system is set up so that you can't shield every round (unless you're spending literally every spell slot on that), shielding shouldn't be expected. We can therefore assume that non-shield ACs are what the system is playing with as standard.

The design of Shield means you don't have to assume its spent every round. You would need to be hit with life threatening attacks every turn that Shield is capable of blocking for that to even matter.

Given that the only classes with native access to Shield are the same two classes with a d6 Hit Die and no armor/shield Prof, I struggle to believe the system doesn't assume they'll Shield.

So our hypothetical 19th level wizard, assuming they rammed all their ASIs into Int and then Dex, and didn't drop any more into Con, is probably looking at capping at 18 AC for all the non-bladesingers/war wizards out there. That's not far off of the rogue who'll be floating 17-20, depending on magic armour, or the unarmoured monk at with 20.

This was an odd place to make your point, Wizards can make Shield a cantrip in terms of resources at 18th level. It's really hard to imagine that they never considered them picking Shield as one of the spells.

I don't believe AC25 or higher is the default assumption for how the game is built, even at high level. Yes, you can reach it, if you try to, if you build to it or stock yourself out with legendary magic items, but typically the game seems to be expecting a number closer to 14-18 to start with, and then 18-21 to end with.

Monster attack rolls scale a lot more, because you're meant to be getting hit and healing (and using resistances to mitigate) at later levels instead of dodging all the attacks
.

What did you think my point was, exactly?

I was saying that the game doesn't expect that kind of high AC from PCs and that Shield is part of that problem. Splat has made it very easy to get to the mid 20s and since Shield is only a 1st level spell, the number of ways to grab it just continue to increase.

They haven't kept a tight enough leash on AC and it shows, but even PHB only a Paladin can punch to 28 with Shield.

I've never had a player be difficult about AC, so I've never had a need to address Shield, but as-is it's recklessly designed.

JonBeowulf

2023-05-30, 11:48 AM

Dr.Samurai

2023-05-30, 11:53 AM

Hi, my name is Fighter McFighter. My entire living experience, from whether or not I can multiclass, take feats, when I take rests, who I fight and what they do, hinges on the Wizard having the Shield spell...

Dork_Forge

2023-05-30, 11:56 AM

Tough love moment: If a character bumping their AC for one round a few times a day is wrecking your game, then you're not doing your job as DM.

1 - You design the encounters and/or control the actions of the NPCs.
2 - You control when spell slots can be regained by controlling access to rests (except Sorcerers).
3 - You (should) know everything the characters can do.
4 - You control access to everything: multi-classing, feats, gear, treasure, spells, etc.

Players occasionally feeling awesome is a good thing and a low-level spell that can maintain relevance as the game progresses is a rare thing -- but not a broken thing. Most Level 1 spells can be upcast but Shield never gets any better. It only does what it does, so external factors have to come into play for it to remain useful. Also, what else is a high-level caster to do with all those Level 1 slots?

As in RL, you bring a bunch of extra work upon yourself if you don't do your job right.

DMs being able to accommodate for things is not an excuse to design something sloppily. And this kind of attitude is the kind of thing that new DMs find extremely intimidating about DMing when it really isn't that hard.

Case in point: there's no reason why Shield couldn't be upcastable. They could have made it a +2 per spell level up to a max of +6. And that would always remain relevant because sometimes you're only hit by 1 or 2.

As for what high level casters would do with 1st level slots, plenty,its the largest pool of spells in the game.

Dr.Samurai

2023-05-30, 12:03 PM

Case in point: there's no reason why Shield couldn't be upcastable. They could have made it a +2 per spell level up to a max of +6. And that would always remain relevant because sometimes you're only hit by 1 or 2.
The Shield spell providing the AC of an actual Shield, until you become stronger and can pump more power into it, makes perfect sense to me.

JonBeowulf

2023-05-30, 12:08 PM

Case in point: there's no reason why Shield couldn't be upcastable. They could have made it a +2 per spell level up to a max of +6. And that would always remain relevant because sometimes you're only hit by 1 or 2.
House rule all you want, but I see absolutely nothing wrong with how it's written. The character turned a hit into a miss (possibly a few more because it lasts until the beginning of their next turn). It's one character for one round.

As for what high level casters would do with 1st level slots, plenty,its the largest pool of spells in the game.
I'd like to see a list common useful things a high level caster can do with level 1 slots. Not "in this very specific case [spell] is very nice" but something that is likely to come up in an adventuring day. Jump perhaps. Maybe Charm Person. Not very many compared to the number of slots they have.

stoutstien

2023-05-30, 12:08 PM

Tough love moment: If a character bumping their AC for one round a few times a day is wrecking your game, then you're not doing your job as DM.

1 - You design the encounters and/or control the actions of the NPCs.
2 - You control when spell slots can be regained by controlling access to rests (except Sorcerers).
3 - You (should) know everything the characters can do.
4 - You control access to everything: multi-classing, feats, gear, treasure, spells, etc.

Players occasionally feeling awesome is a good thing and a low-level spell that can maintain relevance as the game progresses is a rare thing -- but not a broken thing. Most Level 1 spells can be upcast but Shield never gets any better. It only does what it does, so external factors have to come into play for it to remain useful. Also, what else is a high-level caster to do with all those Level 1 slots?

As in RL, you bring a bunch of extra work upon yourself if you don't do your job right.

It's not that they're increasing the AC it's that it's one of the most effective forms of increasing your AC and it's not even on the class that you would assume it's on causing negative feedback.
It probably fine if general armor proficiency wasn't literally one of the cheapest things to get in the game but here we are.

Dork_Forge

2023-05-30, 12:18 PM

House rule all you want, but I see absolutely nothing wrong with how it's written. The character turned a hit into a miss (possibly a few more because it lasts until the beginning of their next turn). It's one character for one round.

... Yes, it's one character for an entire round for only a 1st level slot. And since it's only a 1st level spell it's extremely steal able and armor is laughably easy to attain as a Wiz/Sorc anyway.

Dr Samurai highlighted this, when you get outliers you can end up hammering others with the correction.

.

I'd like to see a list common useful things a high level caster can do with level 1 slots. Not "in this very specific case [spell] is very nice" but something that is likely to come up in an adventuring day. Jump perhaps. Maybe Charm Person. Not very many compared to the number of slots they are

Then I'd recommend you look at a list of 1st level slots then. But since you're so doubtful:

-Absorb Elements is extremely useful as levels increase.
-Sorcerers can scrap slots into points

Spells that can have nice riders along with their damage, like Thunderwaves push.

Jump, Charm Person, Comprehend Languages, Disguise Self, Expeditious Retreat, False Life, Feather Fall, Fog Cloud, Grease, Hideous Laughter, Longstrider, Magic Missile

Any of the ritual spells you can't afford to stick another ten minutes on.

PhoenixPhyre

2023-05-30, 12:21 PM

Reminder--"It's not broken because you can adjust for it by doing a bunch of extra, highly-build-specific adjustments" is the definition of the Oberoni "Fallacy".

If the DM has to be acutely aware of their players builds and especially one particular character's build, down to spells prepared each day and then compensate for it in very targeted ways...that's a sign that something's not working right. If I have to tailor my game to avoid someone with a 1st level spell and basic optimization from making it less fun for everyone (by letting the wizard be better at avoiding hits than anyone else for a trivial investment), that's a bad ability.

In this particular case, shield by itself is fine. When constrained to people who naturally struggle to get good ACs, and that only with a cost. Going from 16 (mage armor with +3 DEX) -> 21 in bursts is just fine and dandy, although the cost at high levels isn't high enough. Going from base 21+ -> near 30, and being a critical part of everyone's build[1] is not. In a world without easy access to armor proficiency and without loads of +X armor, shield is fine. In a world with those, it's not fine by any reckoning except "more power is always better." It distorts incentives tremendously and becomes a must-have/no-brainer. Making it not stack with (physical) armor or shields fixes this entirely. Give fighters a non-spell way of boosting their AC as a reaction (a Parry ability, say). Don't shove it all into the wizard list.

[1] which is what people are saying when they say that you have to have AC > 20+ at high levels. Because you can't get there without shield except on very particular builds with specific magic items.

Anymage

2023-05-30, 12:36 PM

I'd like to see a list common useful things a high level caster can do with level 1 slots. Not "in this very specific case [spell] is very nice" but something that is likely to come up in an adventuring day. Jump perhaps. Maybe Charm Person. Not very many compared to the number of slots they have.

Silvery Barbs, but that's very similar in design space to Sleep. Ditto Absorb Elements.

Active things you can use a first level spell slot for? Hideous Laughter, Detect Magic, Feather Fall, Find Familiar, Fog Cloud, Longstrider, Protection From Evil/Good, and Silent Image all have their uses in T2 and even 3. If these spells don't come to mind because Shield tends to tie up most people's first level slots, that should support the argument that Shield is too strong.

Tough love moment: If a character bumping their AC for one round a few times a day is wrecking your game, then you're not doing your job as DM...

Yes. A good DM can work around the issues. That doesn't mean that we should ignore messy rules because we can fix them. Insisting that you have to be able to keep the game flowing smoothly in spite of known problems is a good way to discourage players from trying their hand at DMing. And more importantly, sometimes the best way for a DM to fix a problematic game element is to change or ban that one thing.

sithlordnergal

2023-05-30, 01:46 PM

An AC focused high level fighter can reasonably assume 28 without too much hassle and without consumables or external assistance. (+3 plate, +3 shield, defense style, ring of protection.) The balor hits that on a 14+. Throw in the Shield spell and you're looking at a 19+, which is a lot for high level characters who can spam slots at it.

Put him next to a rogue or a great weapon fighter, however, and the flaw becomes more apparent. The rogue goes from an assumed 14 AC (Leather armor, +3 Dex) to 20 (+3 studded leather, +5 Dex), while the great weapon fighter goes from 16 (chain) to 21 (+3 plate). There's nothing compelling the balor to not turn around and shred either of them if they do more damage than the defense fighter. And the solution to the lack of scaling otherwise shouldn't involve mandating that all rogues have to become ATs and all fighters have to become EKs, and hiding the fix somewhere on the wizard spell list.

Again, that's only with magic items. You should never assume that you'll get +X Armor, and should never, ever assume that you'll have +3 Plate, a +3 Shield, and a Ring of Protection. Pretty much every DM I know would look at that setup and say "The DM made a mistake, they shouldn't have handed out the +3 Armor/Shield, no matter the level". I play primarily in Tier 3 and 4 since they're my favorite levels to play and DM in, and I've never seen a DM hand out +3 Plate Armor, and rarely do you find a +3 Shield. Heck, I never hand out armor that good. Usually it tops out at +2, if you're lucky, and you can expect +1 at most.

Given that, with a more realistic magic item set up, you're looking at what? 25 AC, maybe 26 if you have a +3 Shield. Better than just straight, non-magical armor, given they need to roll an 11 or 12, but still not really high enough to tank things.

As for why wouldn't the Balor go for the Rogue, its mostly a matter of "Who's in reach". Most Rogues tend to use the Caster strategy of staying away from melee. If you have the option to hit a guy standing in front of you, versus attacking the guy 50 feet away and taking an opportunity attack to reach them, you'll hit the guy in front of you. Especially since you have basically the same chance to hit them that you do the Rogue.

Also, I do feel that there SHOULD be a solution for the lack of scaling. HOWEVER, I haven't seen many solutions in this thread outside of "Lets nerf Shield", which isn't a solution. It just removes the only scaling option available to tank via AC. Remove that, and there is no reason to bother with AC at all at higher levels, unless you can somehow guarantee +3 Armor, which no one can guarantee that since even Artificers max out at +2.

PhoenixPhyre

2023-05-30, 01:58 PM

sithlordnergal

2023-05-30, 02:15 PM

Tanking via AC works just fine...as long as you're actually playing the way the game expects you to and not doing hyper-ultra-deadly fights (ie generally CR > level) that frequently.

Those monsters with super-high hit bonuses are supposed to hit you. Something like 60+% of the time. Yes, that means everybody. Because they're also designed as boss fights. And if they can't hit you very frequently, they have to hit way harder to be a threat. Which means whiff-whiff-splat. Which isn't fun for anyone.

Your method breaks down at higher levels. Once you reach level 17 to 20, those lower CR creatures kind of lose any sort of bite. To the point where things like Death Tyrants are just...not an issue. Hell, a small hoard of vampires are literally just a blip to high level characters cause they usually have easy access to large Radiant AoEs. And its not like i'm talking about hyper-optimized characters here. I'm just talking about things like Sunbeam, Dawn, Sunburst, the Paladin's Improved Divine Smite, Holy Weapon, Channel Divinity from Clerics. They're just not a threat.

Eventually those "boss monsters" have a Cr that's less than the party's average level. A Balor is CR 19, its just a Medium Encounter for a level 19 party, which is exactly how the game is designed. Heck, it become an Easy Encounter once the party is level 20. Yet that Easy Encounter is still hitting the Fighter 60+% of the time, and deals 59 points of damage every round. Even if a fighter has 20 Con and is level 20, that's 26.3% of the fighter's total HP pool. And I don't know many Fighters that go for 20 Con, most sit on 16 to 18 Con.

According to that, the only characters who should be able to stand near a high CR creature like a Balor are Barbarians, due to Rage, Moon Druids, and Rogues, due to Uncanny Dodge. Fighters, Paladins, Rangers, Clerics, they should all stay far away, otherwise they'll get go down like a sack of bricks...in an Easy encounter...Easy, as in "An easy encounter doesn’t tax the characters’ resources or put them in serious peril. They might lose a few hit points, but victory is pretty much guaranteed." 26.3% of your HP is a bit more than "A few hit points".

Now, I do feel that there needs to be more. Shield being the only player controlled way to raise your AC and make it so those boss monsters don't hit you isn't very good game design. I do not think it should be nerfed, not without making an equally effective method for high AC characters to raise their AC to a point where creatures hit a little less than 50% of the time. But pretty much everything I can think of is essentially "Shield, but with a different name, and locked to martials". But I don't think people who want to nerf Shield want that.

stoutstien

2023-05-30, 02:28 PM

Witty Username

2023-05-30, 02:44 PM

What is wrong with +3 armor existing? That gets you an AC of maybe 23 with a shield. Worst case 26 with a +3 shield. That is about the same AC as a character using a shield spell.

If you need shield to keep up with the game, it is likely because you aren't using magical equipment properly by this reading.

Dr.Samurai

2023-05-30, 02:44 PM

I mean... someone has to engage the balor. A fighter losing a quarter of their hit points before the party takes out a lone balor is not surprising to me.

But pretty much everything I can think of is essentially "Shield, but with a different name, and locked to martials". But I don't think people who want to nerf Shield want that.
I wouldn't mind this.

If you're going to have a reaction ability that boosts your AC, give it to the martials. Moving so that the attack hits your armor ineffectively, parrying the attack with your weapon, blocking it with your shield, using footwork to evade... these are all things we expect warriors to be able to do. If the game insists on having a reaction ability to pump AC, give it to the people that predominantly use AC as a defense.

What we have now is a wink wink nudge nudge that these casters are vulnerable, but they wind up stacking the best defenses and taking less attacks/damage.

If you want casters to have this spell, okay, but the mechanic shouldn't be exclusive to them, and it shouldn't stack with other defenses.

PhoenixPhyre

2023-05-30, 02:46 PM

Your method breaks down at higher levels. Once you reach level 17 to 20, those lower CR creatures kind of lose any sort of bite. To the point where things like Death Tyrants are just...not an issue. Hell, a small hoard of vampires are literally just a blip to high level characters cause they usually have easy access to large Radiant AoEs. And its not like i'm talking about hyper-optimized characters here. I'm just talking about things like Sunbeam, Dawn, Sunburst, the Paladin's Improved Divine Smite, Holy Weapon, Channel Divinity from Clerics. They're just not a threat.

Eventually those "boss monsters" have a Cr that's less than the party's average level. A Balor is CR 19, its just a Medium Encounter for a level 19 party, which is exactly how the game is designed. Heck, it become an Easy Encounter once the party is level 20. Yet that Easy Encounter is still hitting the Fighter 60+% of the time, and deals 59 points of damage every round. Even if a fighter has 20 Con and is level 20, that's 26.3% of the fighter's total HP pool. And I don't know many Fighters that go for 20 Con, most sit on 16 to 18 Con.

According to that, the only characters who should be able to stand near a high CR creature like a Balor are Barbarians, due to Rage, Moon Druids, and Rogues, due to Uncanny Dodge. Fighters, Paladins, Rangers, Clerics, they should all stay far away, otherwise they'll get go down like a sack of bricks...in an Easy encounter...Easy, as in "An easy encounter doesn’t tax the characters’ resources or put them in serious peril. They might lose a few hit points, but victory is pretty much guaranteed." 26.3% of your HP is a bit more than "A few hit points".

Now, I do feel that there needs to be more. Shield being the only player controlled way to raise your AC and make it so those boss monsters don't hit you isn't very good game design. I do not think it should be nerfed, not without making an equally effective method for high AC characters to raise their AC to a point where creatures hit a little less than 50% of the time. But pretty much everything I can think of is essentially "Shield, but with a different name, and locked to martials". But I don't think people who want to nerf Shield want that.

The median homogenous encounter for a party of 4 level 20s, by the books, is CR 10-11. Which, totally coincidentally, is also where the DMG switches from mostly normal monsters to mostly boss-type monsters. Hmm..

A balor is designed as a boss monster for a group of ~level 17s, with some mook support (no legendaries). CR 12s are, in general, designed as boss monsters for high-T2 parties. Yes, including the vampire. Etc.

And yes, those "boss monsters" are designed to be threats either individually (legendaries) or with mooks (those without legendaries). Or both. As such, they have to hit you frequently. As in "way more than 50% of the time".

Evasion tanking (and depending on AC alone is exactly evasion tanking) has a well-known flaw--it's super spiky. You're either 100% fine...or you're paste, at least in any encounter threatening enough to be meaningful. A wizard, by the basic fiction, should not expect evasion tanking a balor to go well.

Remember, there is exactly 1 "obvious tank" build that can even possibly get shield without multiclassing (a variant rule). And that's the EK, and EKs aren't even guaranteed to have it. And barely have enough spell slots to make good use of it. If shield were an essential part of tanking...everyone who wanted to be a tank would have it by default. It wouldn't be stuffed in an optional feature of two classes.

If we wanted AC-tanking to be a thing (which I'm not sure of) against high-CR monsters (which is also debatable as to desirability), we should be giving fighters an AC-boosting tool within their class. Not relying on snagging one particular subclass and taking one particular low-level spell. We can do both things--boost fighters and nerf the everliving daylights out of wizards (or in this case wizard spells). Wizards are not some special citizens who deserve all the toys just for existing. When their toys are broken (and shield in the multiclassing/feat context is definitely not working well), they should get fixed or thrown away. Keeping something that causes problems around to cater to very particular playstyles (the hyper-optimized, everything is against Deadly xN once-per-day fights style in this case) is, IMO, bad form.

What is wrong with +3 armor existing? That gets you an AC of maybe 23 with a shield. Worst case 26 with a +3 shield. That is about the same AC as a character using a shield spell.

If you need shield to keep up with the game, it is likely because you aren't using magical equipment properly by this reading.

+3 plate is the single rarest item specifically defined on the DMG tables (ok, tied with +3 half plate) . By a lot. You have to roll one particular value on a d100 for the least-common table, then roll one of 12 other values on a d12. And the guidance is that the average party will have 4 legendary items by level 20. So yeah. Assuming you have +3 plate is...risky unless the DM is letting you custom buy your items (also not part of the guidance). And expecting both a +3 plate AND a +3 shield (Very Rare, one of 4 such items the party as a whole should have with a 2% drop rate on a single DMG table) is...yeah. Not something you should assume is a game requirement or expectation.

sithlordnergal

2023-05-30, 02:48 PM

"Moderately size hordes of lower CR creatures can be handled with resource based features" and "fighter's not using any secondary mitigation will lose 1/4 of thier HP vs a Balor" is making what point exactly?

I'm pretty sure the fighter would actually lose more health versus the small horde of vampires in the weird "this is an easy encounter therefore I shouldn't have to spend any resources" paradigm.

Actually, I was using the two as separate things. HOWEVER, you bring up a good point. Vampires are a CR 13, assuming 4 to 5 make a Hoard, that should be a Deadly Encounter if you look at the encounter building rules. So you should expect it to be potentially lethal, with the party having to expend a large number of resources to just barely survive. Which just isn't true for a party. And they're not that dangerous to a Fighter at that level either.

Now, I am using this http://canihitthis.com/

But looking at that, with 5 Vampires, all with a +9 to hit, the fighter can expect to be hit by around 5 attacks. Now, if the Fighter was already being grappled, then they'll take 58 points of damage...which is about what you'd expect for a Deadly Encounter. Of course, if the fighter isn't being grappled, then the Vampires don't get to have their Bite attack, and the damage drops dramatically.

Now compare that to what is supposed to be an Easy Encounter with one Balor that deals one point more than that with just two attacks, and has about the same chance of both of those attacks hitting that the 5 attacks from 5 Vampires have.

What is wrong with +3 armor existing? That gets you an AC of maybe 23 with a shield. Worst case 26 with a +3 shield. That is about the same AC as a character using a shield spell.

If you need shield to keep up with the game, it is likely because you aren't using magical equipment properly by this reading.

Nothing wrong with +3 Armor existing. I just don't know a single DM that would willingly hand it out to any party, ever, at any level. At most DMs tend to hand out +2 armor, and that's if you're lucky. Most cap out with +1 Armor. So its less "You're not using magical equipment properly" and more "The magical equipment isn't available". Theoretically a Wizard could have Robes of the Archmagic, a Staff of the Magic, and a +2 Int Book...but I wouldn't ever expect to have all three of those items in a game.

EDIT

The median homogenous encounter for a party of 4 level 20s, by the books, is CR 10-11. Which, totally coincidentally, is also where the DMG switches from mostly normal monsters to mostly boss-type monsters. Hmm..

A balor is designed as a boss monster for a group of ~level 17s, with some mook support (no legendaries). CR 12s are, in general, designed as boss monsters for high-T2 parties. Yes, including the vampire. Etc.

And yes, those "boss monsters" are designed to be threats either individually (legendaries) or with mooks (those without legendaries). Or both. As such, they have to hit you frequently. As in "way more than 50% of the time".

I don't know if that's correct. I'm looking at the encounter builder on DnD Beyond right now. Most CR 10-11's fall well below Easy encounter difficulty, at least if you're looking at their Exp Method. Like, I know most encounters should be Easy, but they also suggest sprinkling in Medium Encounters. A single Balor falls into the same encounter rating as a group of CR 10-11's. Its not meant to remain a boss monster, and as such there should be a lot of ways to make it hit far less than 50% of the time. Now, it is on the cusp between Easy and Medium, but still...

Evasion tanking (and depending on AC alone is exactly evasion tanking) has a well-known flaw--it's super spiky. You're either 100% fine...or you're paste, at least in any encounter threatening enough to be meaningful. A wizard, by the basic fiction, should not expect evasion tanking a balor to go well.

Remember, there is exactly 1 "obvious tank" build that can even possibly get shield without multiclassing (a variant rule). And that's the EK, and EKs aren't even guaranteed to have it. And barely have enough spell slots to make good use of it. If shield were an essential part of tanking...everyone who wanted to be a tank would have it by default. It wouldn't be stuffed in an optional feature of two classes.

If we wanted AC-tanking to be a thing (which I'm not sure of) against high-CR monsters (which is also debatable as to desirability), we should be giving fighters an AC-boosting tool within their class. Not relying on snagging one particular subclass and taking one particular low-level spell. We can do both things--boost fighters and nerf the everliving daylights out of wizards (or in this case wizard spells). Wizards are not some special citizens who deserve all the toys just for existing. When their toys are broken (and shield in the multiclassing/feat context is definitely not working well), they should get fixed or thrown away. Keeping something that causes problems around to cater to very particular playstyles (the hyper-optimized, everything is against Deadly xN once-per-day fights style in this case) is, IMO, bad form.

And yes, evasion tanking does have that flaw. However, without it you end up with the Fighter and Paladin being pasted just as easily as the Wizard is. And while I agree that a Wizard shouldn't expect evasion tanking to go well for them, I feel like a Paladin or Fighter SHOULD be able to evasion tank a Balor at level 20. But as it stands, Shield is the only way to do that. Hence why it is an essential part of evasion tanking when multiclassing is available

Now, I do think there should be something else, because I do think AC-tanking is supposed to be a thing at all levels. You shouldn't have to rely on the Shield spell alone. But as it stands, anything I come up with would basically be "Shield but with a martial twist, and gained at a higher level".

Slipjig

2023-05-30, 03:22 PM

"fighter's not using any secondary mitigation will lose 1/4 of thier HP vs a Balor" is making what point exactly?

Frankly, it sounds like this hypothetical Fighter is doing his job, because a Balor focused on him ISN'T going after the casters. And if it takes four full rounds of the Balor's attention to drop the Fighter, that seems pretty reasonable. And it swings even more in the Fighter's favor when you realize this analysis assumes the rest of the party isn't healing the Fighter, buffing the Fighter, or debuffing the Balor. I haven't run the math, but I would assume a halfway-decent healer ought to be able to keep the Fighter on their feet at least a few more rounds.

PhoenixPhyre

2023-05-30, 03:33 PM

stoutstien

2023-05-30, 03:51 PM

Frankly, it sounds like this hypothetical Fighter is doing his job, because a Balor focused on him ISN'T going after the casters. And if it takes four full rounds of the Balor's attention to drop the Fighter, that seems pretty reasonable. And it swings even more in the Fighter's favor when you realize this analysis assumes the rest of the party isn't healing the Fighter, buffing the Fighter, or debuffing the Balor. I haven't run the math, but I would assume a halfway-decent healer ought to be able to keep the Fighter on their feet at least a few more rounds.

Yeah. Sounds like the sub-issue should be Closed, Working as Designed.

The original complaint was said Balor should be a certain level of encounter difficulty but isn't due to some arbitrary value HP lost. I was merely pointing out it wasn't a good point of comparison regardless because said fighter just standing their eating attacks is the type of design that does make shield feel mandatory as the race to zero is taking the lead. Which in T4 is kinda silly.

arnin77

2023-05-30, 04:11 PM

I always thought it was odd that Shield lasted till the start of your next turn and not just the triggering attack.

Kane0

2023-05-30, 04:14 PM

Theodoxus

2023-05-30, 04:53 PM

My change. Make shield a ranged reaction up to 60', usable exactly like the Protection fighting style in all other respects. Imposes disad, can be used for yourself or another ally within range. Solves the stacking problem. Solves the need for the warrior types to go EK or grab Magic Initiate or multiclass for shield when they can just hope their Wizard/Sorcerer/Hexblade teammate will save their proverbial butts.

I think my character would call it 'Bigby's Micro Umbrella' with the visual image of a hand acting as a forcefield over the head and torso of the person I'm potentially saving.

RSP

2023-05-30, 05:00 PM

I’ve seen a bunch of posts claiming Shield is the only way to boost AC. It’s not: Defensive Duelist exists (and at higher levels can be better than Shield in some situations).

I’m not particularly concerned with Shield in 5e. In the games I’ve played, there are very little AC boosting items, even at higher levels. Our Storm Kings Thunder campaign ended at 15, with a total of 2 Rings of Protection, a home brewed +3 Shield (with a Curse), and some +1 or Adamantine armor thrown in.

The issue, as I saw it, was around level 11, monsters start hitting for more damage, and there are very few ways to mitigate it outside of distance. Our Barb “tank” had the shield and a ring, for a total AC of (I think) 24, while the other 5 PCs were between 18-20.

Without Shield, casters were down very quickly (even with Shield if the dice fell right). All in all, outside of the Barb, no PC was able to hang in melee combat.

Now, we don’t particularly optimize, but the game needs to balance with non-optimized tables as well. Or rather, the degree of player optimization will impact how much a DM needs to work to counter that optimization (hopefully in a fun way). Having a 30 AC character with a bunch of 18 AC characters is going to be a problem that needs to be solved (not saying it’s unsolvable, but it’ll require addressing).

Shield, I don’t think is an issue in and of itself. In certain situations it can appear to be an issue, but those probably come about due to other elements and not from Shield existing.

Also of note: it’s sometimes worth burning a Shield casting to avoid any damage, if Concentration is a concern: which just burns through slots faster.

What’s a better use of a spell slot on a Paladin, Shield or Smite?

PhoenixPhyre

2023-05-30, 05:15 PM

I don't know if that's correct. I'm looking at the encounter builder on DnD Beyond right now. Most CR 10-11's fall well below Easy encounter difficulty, at least if you're looking at their Exp Method. Like, I know most encounters should be Easy, but they also suggest sprinkling in Medium Encounters. A single Balor falls into the same encounter rating as a group of CR 10-11's. Its not meant to remain a boss monster, and as such there should be a lot of ways to make it hit far less than 50% of the time. Now, it is on the cusp between Easy and Medium, but still...

And yes, evasion tanking does have that flaw. However, without it you end up with the Fighter and Paladin being pasted just as easily as the Wizard is. And while I agree that a Wizard shouldn't expect evasion tanking to go well for them, I feel like a Paladin or Fighter SHOULD be able to evasion tank a Balor at level 20. But as it stands, Shield is the only way to do that. Hence why it is an essential part of evasion tanking when multiclassing is available

Now, I do think there should be something else, because I do think AC-tanking is supposed to be a thing at all levels. You shouldn't have to rely on the Shield spell alone. But as it stands, anything I come up with would basically be "Shield but with a martial twist, and gained at a higher level".

No. A single CR 10-11 is well below Easy. But single monster encounters aren't supposed to be normal!. You should be using <party size> - 2x<party size> monsters in your median encounter. And 4x CR 10s is Medium, 8x CR 10s is Hard for a level 20 party of 4.

Personally, AC tanking should never work alone. Fighters and paladins have more than just AC. They have
* self-healing
* damage reduction opportunities (including taking the Dodge action)
* other "evasive" means
* Party members to help them out via the above and spells.

And those tend to work non-linearly with available HP. Your TTL for a fighter at AC X (all else equal) is better than that for a wizard at the same AC. And throwing defensive measures (such as self-healing, resistances, etc) on a bigger HP pool is more effective than throwing them on a smaller pool.

And, as pointed out, a fighter can, even with normal AC, tank for 4 rounds in the absence of any other assistance. That, to me, is working as intended. If you could AC tank effectively indefinitely, something's horribly wrong with the math.

5eNeedsDarksun

2023-05-30, 05:16 PM

PhoenixPhyre

2023-05-30, 05:36 PM

But that's as much an issue with dipping and Arcane Recovery as Shield Spell.

Yeah. Shield, standing alone, isn't a problem most of the time. It's shield in conjunction with (one or more of) multiclassing for armor, wizards (particularly) and a few other pieces.

You could very simply just say "ok, you can't cast spells in armor that the class whose spells you're casting didn't give you proficiency in". So yes, a wizard could dip for armor. But he couldn't cast wizard spells in them. Yes, this does make a lot of dipping for armor much worse. GOOD.

Schwann145

2023-05-30, 06:19 PM

If these spells don't come to mind because Shield tends to tie up most people's first level slots, that should support the argument that Shield is too strong.
Or it supports the argument that AC, in general, is too low.

Pex

2023-05-30, 06:32 PM

I mean... someone has to engage the balor. A fighter losing a quarter of their hit points before the party takes out a lone balor is not surprising to me.

I wouldn't mind this.

If you're going to have a reaction ability that boosts your AC, give it to the martials. Moving so that the attack hits your armor ineffectively, parrying the attack with your weapon, blocking it with your shield, using footwork to evade... these are all things we expect warriors to be able to do. If the game insists on having a reaction ability to pump AC, give it to the people that predominantly use AC as a defense.

What we have now is a wink wink nudge nudge that these casters are vulnerable, but they wind up stacking the best defenses and taking less attacks/damage.

If you want casters to have this spell, okay, but the mechanic shouldn't be exclusive to them, and it shouldn't stack with other defenses.

I sympathize with your point of view but ultimately I can't agree with it, or at least not completely. I accept no PC/class should do everything, but call it RPG(D&D) philosophy for just because your class is a spellcaster doesn't mean you have to be vulnerable to everything either. I'm with you a wizard should not be casting spells in full plate just because his 1st level was in fighter, but I'm perfectly fine a spellcaster having spells to help avoiding getting hit. Warriors wear armor. A spellcaster has to use up resources to do it.

The problem, such as it is, is the ability of a wizard to cast in full plate because he took his 1st level in fighter (or heavy armor granted cleric), not in the spell Shield. I won't bat an eye the Eldritch Knight does it.

Anymage

2023-05-30, 06:36 PM

Or it supports the argument that AC, in general, is too low.

So look for ways to fix that directly. Don't decide that your fix should involve everybody finding ways to gain some Wiz/Sor spells and a bunch of spell slots in order to get that AC patch.

Pex

2023-05-30, 06:41 PM

I'm currently playing an armorer Artificer and i am feeling the pressure to reserve my 1st level slots purely for shield, even though im in a situation where that really shouldnt be the case. My AC is already 19 thanks to a shield and enhanced defence (havent finished making my fullplate yet), i've got a steady flow of THP, I already have a use for my reactions with my armor of strength and my entire party are melee types to spread the attention (thunder gauntlets notwithstanding). Even at level 4 when i really should be spreading out those 1st level slots for other things like healing or thunderwaves but i cant justify it to myself, its just so effective.

Edit: its gotten to the point that the DM pauses expectantly when he attacks me, sometimes even directly asking if im going to shield or not

Nitpick: Armorer doesn't have Shield, so you needed a resource allocation to get it.

Personally I use Blur as my defense. High AC with opponent having disadvantage on attack Shield not needed. When I played a Battle Smith who does get Shield using the same Blur tactic I rarely had to cast Shield. Even then the DM learned to attack me with saving throws.

Theodoxus

2023-05-30, 08:26 PM

Nitpick: Armorer doesn't have Shield, so you needed a resource allocation to get it.

Personally I use Blur as my defense. High AC with opponent having disadvantage on attack Shield not needed. When I played a Battle Smith who does get Shield using the same Blur tactic I rarely had to cast Shield. Even then the DM learned to attack me with saving throws.

Kinda supports my point. Blur lasts a minute, but is self only and is foiled by blindsight or truesight. My shield modification lasts a round, but is a lower level and can be used on an ally at range, but isn't an illusion... seems like it fits perfectly.

sithlordnergal

2023-05-30, 09:04 PM

I’ve seen a bunch of posts claiming Shield is the only way to boost AC. It’s not: Defensive Duelist exists (and at higher levels can be better than Shield in some situations).

So, the issue with current martial methods of raising AC is that most only last for a single hit. Which is great if you're only tanking one hit per turn. But the second Multiattack becomes a thing, it loses its effectiveness really fast. Bait and Switch is the only martial way of raising your AC for an entire turn like Shield does, but it requires someone within 5 feet of you that's willing to swap places with you, and uses a dice roll that could be as good as Shield.

No. A single CR 10-11 is well below Easy. But single monster encounters aren't supposed to be normal!. You should be using <party size> - 2x<party size> monsters in your median encounter. And 4x CR 10s is Medium, 8x CR 10s is Hard for a level 20 party of 4.

Personally, AC tanking should never work alone. Fighters and paladins have more than just AC. They have
* self-healing
* damage reduction opportunities (including taking the Dodge action)
* other "evasive" means
* Party members to help them out via the above and spells.

And those tend to work non-linearly with available HP. Your TTL for a fighter at AC X (all else equal) is better than that for a wizard at the same AC. And throwing defensive measures (such as self-healing, resistances, etc) on a bigger HP pool is more effective than throwing them on a smaller pool.

And, as pointed out, a fighter can, even with normal AC, tank for 4 rounds in the absence of any other assistance. That, to me, is working as intended. If you could AC tank effectively indefinitely, something's horribly wrong with the math.

I don't think that's actually what's 100% intended. The system seems more akin to "Here's the exp budget, here's how you handle groups of enemies of differing size". I.E. a single Balor should be taking about as many resources to beat for a level 20 party as a few CR 10's.

Now, I don't think the Balor should be weakened, but I do think that classes like the Fighter that rely on evasion tanking should have access to things that let them evasion tank. Things like the Shield spell. Because it absolutely should work on its own. A character that invests heavily into AC should be nearly impossible to hit at all Tiers of play. Shield allows that to happen. That or they should have a way to gain Resistance to damage when they are hit.

And characters that rely on Shield are a far cry from being able to tank indefinitely. Spell slots are a limited resource. I could go for something similar to the Shield spell that uses up a resource and lasts an entire round that's just for Martials. Like a Parry that adds your Proficency Bonus to your AC for the entire round, and you can only do it a limited number of times per day.

As for Self-Healing, taking the Dodge Action, and the other things you mentioned:

Self-healing isn't worth bringing up. Paladins are really the only martial class with a self-heal that's worth talking about. The fighter's Second Wind is kinda useless at higher levels. It lets you patch yourself up a little, but not enough to let you tank for much longer.

The Dodge Action is never worth talking about because its just not a worthwhile Action. All it does is cause more rounds for you to be hit. Its not an actual evasion tanking option.

What sort of other "evasion" methods are you talking about? Obviously we have Dodge, but that's not really any good. Shield of Faith is handy, but doesn't add enough AC to really be great on its own. You could stay out of melee range...but at that point you're basically having to resort to the same thing the Wizard does, and lets face it. A fighter shouldn't be running from the front line to hide with the Wizard.

Never assume party assistance outside of "We'll work together to kill the target, and sometimes pick you up if you hit 0 HP."

Theodoxus

2023-05-30, 10:19 PM

Never assume party assistance outside of "We'll work together to kill the target, and sometimes pick you up if you hit 0 HP."

Warding Bond then. That's pretty much the essence of 'work together and pick you up'. Especially if it's a Life Cleric on the other end of that Bond. Not only are they doing bonus healing on the front liner, but they're getting free healing on themself too. Being concentration free for an hour means it's going to last probably two fights (if not more). Heck, toss a Beacon of Hope at the start of the fight too... that's a metric TON of healing throughput.

Dr.Samurai

2023-05-30, 10:35 PM

I sympathize with your point of view but ultimately I can't agree with it, or at least not completely. I accept no PC/class should do everything, but call it RPG(D&D) philosophy for just because your class is a spellcaster doesn't mean you have to be vulnerable to everything either. I'm with you a wizard should not be casting spells in full plate just because his 1st level was in fighter, but I'm perfectly fine a spellcaster having spells to help avoiding getting hit. Warriors wear armor. A spellcaster has to use up resources to do it.

The problem, such as it is, is the ability of a wizard to cast in full plate because he took his 1st level in fighter (or heavy armor granted cleric), not in the spell Shield. I won't bat an eye the Eldritch Knight does it.
It sounds like we're mostly in agreement. What you're espousing sounds close to what the OP is saying, which I agree with. I wouldn't be bothered to see the Shield spell vanish (which I think is really the only thing you're disagreeing with), but I recognize there's a space for it to exist that isn't casters walking around in full plate stacking their AC modifiers to the moon.

With regards to game philosophy, this will come as a surprise to no one but I don't particularly like D&D's philosophy towards martials. In a story, heroes overcome their fear and fight monsters. In D&D, casters make their will saves vs fear and tank monster attacks with Shield, while martials get the Frightened condition and get mauled by Multiattack.

It's... offensive, to my delicate sensibilities, that this is the paradigm in the game. But it is what it is. I think not allowing Shield to stack with armor/shield is great. It means the caster can avoid a really bad situation, without letting them consistently tank better than frontliners.

But if it's so important that Shield exist, that casters can wade into melee and tank a boss monster's multi-attack, that casters not be vulnerable, then all I'm saying is fork over some of that love to the martials. Give them a reaction AC booster too.

So, the issue with current martial methods of raising AC is that most only last for a single hit. Which is great if you're only tanking one hit per turn. But the second Multiattack becomes a thing, it loses its effectiveness really fast. Bait and Switch is the only martial way of raising your AC for an entire turn like Shield does, but it requires someone within 5 feet of you that's willing to swap places with you, and uses a dice roll that could be as good as Shield.
I think Defensive Duelist gets more flak than it deserves. Or maybe it's better said that it gets flak for the wrong reasons, in my opinion.

Not all attacks are created equally. On a straight multiattack that only deals damage, sure, you've reduced damage by 33%. I'd say that's pretty good anyways but yeah, it's not impacting every attack.

But on a multiattack where one of the attacks has extra rider damage, plus conditions, and sets you up with a debuff for more incoming attacks, making that miss with Defensive Duelist can go a long way.

My issue is that it requires a finesse weapon. I don't like that martials are limited in style by the type of weapon they use, especially with this "anything can be refluffed" perspective that seems pretty popular. On the one hand... they are trying to cleave to a trope, on the other hand, we have to imagine blocking a dragon's colossal bite attack with a rapier. It's nonsensical, but apparently not more than a fighter parrying with a two-handed weapon :smallconfused:.

Witty Username

2023-05-30, 11:49 PM

I sympathize with your point of view but ultimately I can't agree with it, or at least not completely. I accept no PC/class should do everything, but call it RPG(D&D) philosophy for just because your class is a spellcaster doesn't mean you have to be vulnerable to everything either. I'm with you a wizard should not be casting spells in full plate just because his 1st level was in fighter, but I'm perfectly fine a spellcaster having spells to help avoiding getting hit. Warriors wear armor. A spellcaster has to use up resources to do it.

The problem, such as it is, is the ability of a wizard to cast in full plate because he took his 1st level in fighter (or heavy armor granted cleric), not in the spell Shield. I won't bat an eye the Eldritch Knight does it.

My mind on that is I don't mind defensive spells so much as Shield is overbearing. Mage Armor is generally sufficient.

My thoughts unpacked a bit: To focus this a bit, I find casters (the ones with access to the relevant spells) live in two states, one at low levels, shield vs mage armor, and one at mid-high levels, shield and mage armor. At mid-high levels the affect is pretty straight forward, AC 13 + dex + shield when AC is relevant. even with something banal like 14 dex, this ends with an AC of 20 (the top end of standard defenses). This ends up with, in my mind, casters having too much defense for their party role.
At low levels, 1st level spells known/prepared and slots are too valuable to warrant both, as the big gun spells need to also share space with these. So we need to choose, mage armor or shield. I have found that this also favors shield, despite the long duration of mage armor. Mage armor needs to be precast which means it can be more easily wasted or inefficient (with only two or three spells, needing all of them for an encounter day is a distinct possibility, and even but 2nd level casting, 1st level spells will periodically devoted to combat and aggression. While shield will mean more slots used, it also means slots used in actual emergencies, so no wasting a slot on mage armor when the caster doesn't need the defenses, and has a greater chance of actual success due to the higher AC bonus. This second point is the sticker for me, shield used effectively turns situations that would normally be punishing into trivialities at any level of play. This makes casters, a role that is supposed to have consideration of risk as a major point of their design, awkwardly safe to play, out of position, press shield. I personally find the mage armor side of this to be a much healthier for the game, as at low levels, the safety it provides must be planed in advance, and so must be considered, and when its cost becomes negligible, it is beneficial by way of the mage staying relevant rather than becoming dominant.

In short, shield is a problematic spell, at all levels of play, and regardless of build.

Kane0

2023-05-31, 01:58 AM

On the one hand... they are trying to cleave to a trope, on the other hand, we have to imagine blocking a dragon's colossal bite attack with a rapier. It's nonsensical, but apparently not more than a fighter parrying with a two-handed weapon :smallconfused:.
I'll join you on that hill.

KorvinStarmast

2023-05-31, 07:17 AM

What is wrong with +3 armor existing? Nothing. :smallsmile:

That gets you an AC of maybe 23 with a shield. Worst case 26 with a +3 shield. That is about the same AC as a character using a shield spell.
My Champion has an AC of 25. (level 15). How did he get that?
+1 Half Plate, +1 Shield, Defensive Fighting style, Medium Armor Master Feat, Dex = 16, Ring of Protection (attuned) , Cloak of Prot (attuned). (The other attuned item is a Sword of Vengeance, and the party has still not figured out that he's wielding a cursed weapon. Our cleric is high level, but the player is clueless).

The fire giants and adult dragon had maybe a little trouble hitting him, but he got hit with some frequency.
The ettins and the gnoll minions had a lot of trouble hitting him.

If you need shield to keep up with the game, it is likely because you aren't using magical equipment properly by this reading. Or, there isn't a lot of magic equipment in the game, or it is not yet found, etc.
There is no WBL in D&D 5e.

. And 4x CR 10s is Medium, 8x CR 10s is Hard for a level 20 party of 4. Quantity has a quality all its own ... :smalleek:

And, as pointed out, a fighter can, even with normal AC, tank for 4 rounds in the absence of any other assistance. That, to me, is working as intended. If you could AC tank effectively indefinitely, something's horribly wrong with the math. Tend to agree.

Yeah. Shield, standing alone, isn't a problem most of the time. It's shield in conjunction with (one or more of) multiclassing for armor, wizards (particularly) and a few other pieces.

You could very simply just say "ok, you can't cast spells in armor that the class whose spells you're casting didn't give you proficiency in". So yes, a wizard could dip for armor. But he couldn't cast wizard spells in them. Yes, this does make a lot of dipping for armor much worse. GOOD. +1

Warding Bond then. That's pretty much the essence of 'work together and pick you up'. Especially if it's a Life Cleric on the other end of that Bond. Not only are they doing bonus healing on the front liner, but they're getting free healing on themself too. Being concentration free for an hour means it's going to last probably two fights (if not more). Heck, toss a Beacon of Hope at the start of the fight too... that's a metric TON of healing throughput. Something I love about life clerics is this kind of synergy. :smallsmile:

RSP

2023-05-31, 09:11 AM

I think Defensive Duelist gets more flak than it deserves. Or maybe it's better said that it gets flak for the wrong reasons, in my opinion.

Not all attacks are created equally. On a straight multiattack that only deals damage, sure, you've reduced damage by 33%. I'd say that's pretty good anyways but yeah, it's not impacting every attack.

But on a multiattack where one of the attacks has extra rider damage, plus conditions, and sets you up with a debuff for more incoming attacks, making that miss with Defensive Duelist can go a long way.

My issue is that it requires a finesse weapon. I don't like that martials are limited in style by the type of weapon they use, especially with this "anything can be refluffed" perspective that seems pretty popular. On the one hand... they are trying to cleave to a trope, on the other hand, we have to imagine blocking a dragon's colossal bite attack with a rapier. It's nonsensical, but apparently not more than a fighter parrying with a two-handed weapon :smallconfused:.

I agree the weapon shouldn’t matter (assuming it’s a melee weapon), but I do like Dex 13 requirement.

DD is fine, if unspectacular when weighed against newer feats (if released for 5e now, it would also grant +1 to Dex (or Str perhaps). But it allows non-Shield-ers a way to use a similar reaction.

I’m assuming the thought of the developers was “Shield grants +5 to casters, 4x/day”, DD provides +PB to martials once every round” as balanced.

If tables are seeing issues with high ACs, I’d suggest working that rather than blaming Shield, though each DM needs to do what they think is best for their table. In general, I’d say using limited resources on a 1 turn boast, isn’t the issue in terms of “unhittable AC”.

So, the issue with current martial methods of raising AC is that most only last for a single hit. Which is great if you're only tanking one hit per turn. But the second Multiattack becomes a thing, it loses its effectiveness really fast. Bait and Switch is the only martial way of raising your AC for an entire turn like Shield does, but it requires someone within 5 feet of you that's willing to swap places with you, and uses a dice roll that could be as good as Shield.

…Like a Parry that adds your Proficency Bonus to your AC for the entire round, and you can only do it a limited number of times per day.

If DMs see the issue being that DD only mitigates one attack, they could allow it to last the turn as well, but that then becomes “Reaction = +PB to AC” as essential a permanent feature.

I’d probably say it should also use a BA to set up (BA to get in your “defensive stance”), then you can use your Reaction to grant the effect (Reaction to “start parrying”), as it’s balanced against not having a Reaction or BA for anything else, while being an otherwise “permanent” AC boost. If you find you’d rather take an OA instead of Parrying with your Reaction, you can still do so.

But again, I don’t think “Shield is too powerful/needs to go away” is properly identifying the issue, or the solution.

diplomancer

2023-05-31, 09:29 AM

I agree the weapon shouldn’t matter (assuming it’s a melee weapon), but I do like Dex 13 requirement.

DD is fine, if unspectacular when weighed against newer feats (if released for 5e now, it would also grant +1 to Dex (or Str perhaps). But it allows non-Shield-ers a way to use a similar reaction.

I’m assuming the thought of the developers was “Shield grants +5 to casters, 4x/day”, DD provides +PB to martials once every round” as balanced.

If tables are seeing issues with high ACs, I’d suggest working that rather than blaming Shield, though each DM needs to do what they think is best for their table. In general, I’d say using limited resources on a 1 turn boast, isn’t the issue in terms of “unhittable AC”.

If DMs see the issue being that DD only mitigates one attack, they could allow it to last the turn as well, but that then becomes “Reaction = +PB to AC” as essential a permanent feature.

I’d probably say it should also use a BA to set up (BA to get in your “defensive stance”), then you can use your Reaction to grant the effect (Reaction to “start parrying”), as it’s balanced against not having a Reaction or BA for anything else, while being an otherwise “permanent” AC boost. If you find you’d rather take an OA instead of Parrying with your Reaction, you can still do so.

But again, I don’t think “Shield is too powerful/needs to go away” is properly identifying the issue, or the solution.

Maybe DD could be "add prof. bonus to AC for the entire round, prof. times/day", would be a good comparison with Shield, and would scale best precisely when Shield is considered to be "necessary". Good feat to take at level 12.

Anymage

2023-05-31, 12:36 PM

So, the issue with current martial methods of raising AC is that most only last for a single hit. Which is great if you're only tanking one hit per turn. But the second Multiattack becomes a thing, it loses its effectiveness really fast.
...
And characters that rely on Shield are a far cry from being able to tank indefinitely. Spell slots are a limited resource. I could go for something similar to the Shield spell that uses up a resource and lasts an entire round that's just for Martials. Like a Parry that adds your Proficency Bonus to your AC for the entire round, and you can only do it a limited number of times per day.

I'm seeing this a lot. People simultaneously claim that Shield is okay because it's a very limited resource, and also that Shield is necessary because you need it in order to reliably have an AC to match the attack rolls of high level monsters. These can't both be true at the same time. If the game math does indeed go off the rails at high level, that should be patched directly instead of hiding the fix on the wizard list and requiring spell slots to apply it. If it's supposed to be a limited resource to save potential HP at the cost of a spell slot, fights should be planned around the idea that it's a limited resource and the game should run just fine if you assume that the character isn't spending the resources towards that end. Doubly so since, again, it seems odd that the game would be built around the expectation that tanky characters would be required to include a wizard dip for a key element of their toolkit.

Never assume party assistance outside of "We'll work together to kill the target, and sometimes pick you up if you hit 0 HP."

It'd be hard for me to disagree with this more strongly. First, because it's impossible to have a balance point that applies both to a synergistic team and to a team where everybody is off attacking without caring about their teammates. Second, because if I wanted to be just one member of a discoordinated mob beating up on the same thing, I'd get the same effect just queuing random content on an online game. If I want to sit around the table and play with my friends, I'm going to want us all working together to play up everyone's strengths and let everybody look awesome. Everybody working individually and fighting for the spotlight is not a good thing for the game.

Now, I don't think the Balor should be weakened, but I do think that classes like the Fighter that rely on evasion tanking should have access to things that let them evasion tank. Things like the Shield spell. Because it absolutely should work on its own. A character that invests heavily into AC should be nearly impossible to hit at all Tiers of play. Shield allows that to happen. That or they should have a way to gain Resistance to damage when they are hit.

Once again. Is evasion tanking supposed to be something that the character only pulls out occasionally because it's resource limited? Or is it something that the character can expect to rely on more often than not because they invested in it?

Also, this gets into one of my major points. If any serious melee type is expected to have Shield in order to handle the incoming attacks from heavy hitting enemies, what you really get is a five point AC spread between people who do find a way to include Shield and enough spell slots vs. people who don't. And that's before the part where you usually expect melee types to have better AC and HP than other characters. It's not hard to find bigger monsters to challenge the higher stats of these characters. It becomes harder when they have one massive outlier defensive stat, and attacks against other characters or even attacks against other defenses on the same character are nigh guaranteed to hit. One of the promises of BA was that characters should all be close enough on the dice so that you don't have some practically guaranteed to succeed while others are practically guaranteed to fail. +5 to AC for some people, but only those who can find a way to fit in wizard casting and a decent stock of spell slots, flies right in the face of that.

If Shield is meant to be a math patch, stop hiding the patch in the wizard's spell list and find some way to get the math back directly. Either upfront errata, or introducing relevant features for everybody.

If Shield is meant to be a way for people to occasionally shift the odds in their favor at the cost of a resource, give more people similar effects and decide what the resources/limiters should be for the different styles. I know that if you give melee a limited resource you'll run into people complaining that "you turned their fighters into wizards". A lot of those people are also looking for ways to get Shield on all their characters, so I pay them little heed.

If the math works just fine otherwise, letting only some people - primarily those who make a point to multiclass wizard - have a significantly higher AC is going to create imbalance that's another hassle to have to work around. It's not hard to work around this hassle. Attacks primarily against saves and/or counterspellers to counter the Shield are very easy to include. It's much harder to work around the hassle without making the guy with heavy armor and the Shield spell feel singled out and picked on, however, so I'd rather just not have to face the issue.

Dr.Samurai

2023-05-31, 01:07 PM

It'd be hard for me to disagree with this more strongly. First, because it's impossible to have a balance point that applies both to a synergistic team and to a team where everybody is off attacking without caring about their teammates. Second, because if I wanted to be just one member of a discoordinated mob beating up on the same thing, I'd get the same effect just queuing random content on an online game. If I want to sit around the table and play with my friends, I'm going to want us all working together to play up everyone's strengths and let everybody look awesome. Everybody working individually and fighting for the spotlight is not a good thing for the game.
I generally agree with your entire post, and with this point I also want to highlight that the spotlight-hogger type characters might not pan out in game the way they do online.

Like, a character that can front-line and also deal more damage and also counterspell might theoretically be able to do all of those things, but can't do them all at once. And while it's easy to say "hey, more options is always better, can't hurt!", the fact is that you only have so many actions.

A frontliner that spends their reaction to counter a spell or use Hellish Rebuke or cast Silvery Barbs is one that isn't going to use Shield that round, or make an Opportunity Attack, or protect themselves with Absorb Elements. A fighter with Sentinel, who will see his Reaction mostly devoted to Sentinel potential, will be a more reliable tank, than an uber caster wannabe poser that's trying to do a million things at once.

I've seen something similar happen, where our bladesinger (who is just a bladesinger, not an omni-character type) activated his bladesong and joined me in melee, and used his Reaction to Counterspell. And hey, great use of a reaction, he actually did counterspell the spell. But he's in melee, and while Bladesong is good, it doesn't make you unhittable. And without Shield he took a lot of damage (monsters got kind of lucky because first attack actually negated his Cloak of Displacement, and following attacks rolled well). It didn't kill him but he did retreat to the backline on his turn and pressured the cleric to heal him.

Now this is a minor example and really a one-off, as this player wasn't trying to be all things at all times. But saying "I can do any of these things in any given round" means that on any given round you're not doing the other things. And what this means is that you're not contributing a reliable role to the party, but rather playing a character that simply gets to have an answer to any trigger in the game. Which might be fun for the player, but it's different than actually fulfilling the roles you're claiming to fill.

There's nothing wrong with dabbling in other roles and abilities, but a party with dedicated roles that splits responsibilities is a stronger party than one full of characters all trying to outdo each other and be all things at once.

sithlordnergal

2023-05-31, 01:47 PM

It'd be hard for me to disagree with this more strongly. First, because it's impossible to have a balance point that applies both to a synergistic team and to a team where everybody is off attacking without caring about their teammates. Second, because if I wanted to be just one member of a discoordinated mob beating up on the same thing, I'd get the same effect just queuing random content on an online game. If I want to sit around the table and play with my friends, I'm going to want us all working together to play up everyone's strengths and let everybody look awesome. Everybody working individually and fighting for the spotlight is not a good thing for the game.

Its less of a spotlight issue and more of a teamwork issue. I have three groups currently, all of whom have teamwork issues:

Group 1 has a player that will gladly drop a high level fireball directly on the party, then follow it up with a Sleep spell, even if it knocks out fellow party members, because they do not care about friendly fire. This player also isn't allowed to be the party healer anymore cause there are a lot of times where he'd just refuse to heal a dying PC because that PC annoyed his character, and he was hoping they'd die. We also have a Paladin that doesn't really Paladin, as they're always worried about resources and is loath to spend any, be it Lay on Hands or spell slots.

Group 2 is inexperienced, which I understand. But is also comes with a lack of coherence and team work. They tend to work individually instead of as a team. Though they are getting better! I have high hopes for this group.

Group 3 is experienced...but I don't know what the other players are thinking. They're the kind of group where they'll see a powerful enemy surrounded by 3 mooks that do nothing except have a lot of HP...and then attack two different mooks. There's only 3 of us in this group, and neither player have learned the phrase "Focus Fire". I try to back them both up, but its hard to do when they're on opposite sides of the map, both wanting buffs/healing/arcane support...and I'm being focus fired by the main powerful enemy cause the DM always targets casters first. They've also done things like gotten into combat, then one player will retreat to go explore more while combat is still going on, accidentally leaving myself and one other person to fend for ourselves. They have gotten better...after a TPK and me being on my 4th character cause I keep sacrificing myself to keep them alive. X_X

The only time I've gotten to have actual team work and cohesion is when I join random AL games with groups of random players. I've given up on teamwork and cohesion in my friend groups. Outside of that its usually "Do your best to survive on your own, cause you're getting 0 help outside of the occasional Healing Word to bring you back up from 0"

Segev

2023-05-31, 01:56 PM

Its less of a spotlight issue and more of a teamwork issue. I have three groups currently, all of whom have teamwork issues:

Group 1 has a player that will gladly drop a high level fireball directly on the party, then follow it up with a Sleep spell, even if it knocks out fellow party members, because they do not care about friendly fire. This player also isn't allowed to be the party healer anymore cause there are a lot of times where he'd just refuse to heal a dying PC because that PC annoyed his character, and he was hoping they'd die. We also have a Paladin that doesn't really Paladin, as they're always worried about resources and is loath to spend any, be it Lay on Hands or spell slots.

Group 2 is inexperienced, which I understand. But is also comes with a lack of coherence and team work. They tend to work individually instead of as a team. Though they are getting better! I have high hopes for this group.

Group 3 is experienced...but I don't know what the other players are thinking. They're the kind of group where they'll see a powerful enemy surrounded by 3 mooks that do nothing except have a lot of HP...and then attack two different mooks. There's only 3 of us in this group, and neither player have learned the phrase "Focus Fire". I try to back them both up, but its hard to do when they're on opposite sides of the map, both wanting buffs/healing/arcane support...and I'm being focus fired by the main powerful enemy cause the DM always targets casters first. They've also done things like gotten into combat, then one player will retreat to go explore more while combat is still going on, accidentally leaving myself and one other person to fend for ourselves. They have gotten better...after a TPK and me being on my 4th character cause I keep sacrificing myself to keep them alive. X_X

The only time I've gotten to have actual team work and cohesion is when I join random AL games with groups of random players. I've given up on teamwork and cohesion in my friend groups. Outside of that its usually "Do your best to survive on your own, cause you're getting 0 help outside of the occasional Healing Word to bring you back up from 0"

Condolences. With one exception, the groups I game with actually have really good teamwork and cohesion. Out of character, if not always in character (sometimes the PCs lack information to coordinate on, or have their own goals that are not antithetical to the party, but do pull in slightly different directions). One particular group has a tendency to take challenges and transform them into opportunities by leveraging the setting as well as their own powers in tandem together.

sithlordnergal

2023-05-31, 02:00 PM

Condolences. With one exception, the groups I game with actually have really good teamwork and cohesion. Out of character, if not always in character (sometimes the PCs lack information to coordinate on, or have their own goals that are not antithetical to the party, but do pull in slightly different directions). One particular group has a tendency to take challenges and transform them into opportunities by leveraging the setting as well as their own powers in tandem together.

I dream of the day my friends can work like that. Currently, I get excited when three players attack the same target, or we get through an encounter without friendly fire. Hence why I say "Never rely on the party working together". If you rely on teamwork in my groups, you'll be sorely disappointed.

Dr.Samurai

2023-05-31, 02:06 PM

Well, there's also a difference between acknowledging how the game maybe intends to be run, and the realities of running it at the table.

I sympathize with Sithlordnergal because my group isn't exactly teamwork oriented. We'd wouldn't tolerate someone that's constantly nuking us with spells, but focus fire on enemies is not a thing in my group except maybe by happenstance.

But I do think the game assumes teamwork.

Tangent: I saw a commercial last night for LinkedIn and it said something like "You're questing for jobs when you'd rather be questing for dragons" and it pans from someone scrolling through job postings to a group of friends playing D&D at a table. I was like "Oh, ok, we're in LinkedIn commercials now...". Didn't realize exactly how mainstream D&D has become lol.

Theodoxus

2023-05-31, 05:13 PM

I'm seeing this a lot. People simultaneously claim that Shield is okay because it's a very limited resource, and also that Shield is necessary because you need it in order to reliably have an AC to match the attack rolls of high level monsters. These can't both be true at the same time.

I think people are afeared of HP loss. Shield helps keep folks from losing chunks of HP. It's a limited resource guarding another. I get the concern, as a player, I certainly don't want to run out of HP and will try to maximize everything I can think of to alleviate it. But past 1st level, it's actually pretty hard to perma-kill a PC outside of DM fiat / cheese. Up unto a point, where some spells make it fairly easy, and then a few monsters can be quite hazardous to your health... but in between those extremes, it's hard to kill PCs... it'd be nice if players understood that, and not try to both maximize their resistance and avoidance - which is really the crux of the problem (as has been pointed out in this thread) of where shield being used on heavy armored PCs lies.

Tangent: I saw a commercial last night for LinkedIn and it said something like "You're questing for jobs when you'd rather be questing for dragons" and it pans from someone scrolling through job postings to a group of friends playing D&D at a table. I was like "Oh, ok, we're in LinkedIn commercials now...". Didn't realize exactly how mainstream D&D has become lol.

It's finally our time - where the creative types that grew up in the late 70s and 80s are in charge of marketing to their peers. It's a great time to be middle aged!

PhoenixPhyre

2023-05-31, 05:33 PM

I think people are afeared of HP loss. Shield helps keep folks from losing chunks of HP. It's a limited resource guarding another. I get the concern, as a player, I certainly don't want to run out of HP and will try to maximize everything I can think of to alleviate it. But past 1st level, it's actually pretty hard to perma-kill a PC outside of DM fiat / cheese. Up unto a point, where some spells make it fairly easy, and then a few monsters can be quite hazardous to your health... but in between those extremes, it's hard to kill PCs... it'd be nice if players understood that, and not try to both maximize their resistance and avoidance - which is really the crux of the problem (as has been pointed out in this thread) of where shield being used on heavy armored PCs lies.

An idle thought (that might not be true)--

Maybe the combination of super ultra bursty fights, weak in-combat healing, and little use of HD for healing makes that worse? If I know that in general I'd get hit for ~50% of my HP and then get a chance to heal up, etc, so the real threat comes after I've burned my HD...HP loss isn't so scary. If I'm worried that being below 0 means I can get burst down to 0 or outright dead in a single turn and I know that I won't have much of a chance to heal other than a long rest, the only other option is to avoid getting hit at all if possible. Sure, you can't stop everything, but you can push that as far off the board as possible.

In a rocket tag environment where the entire adventuring day is 5-6 rounds of 2-3 monsters (so worst case ~30 attacks total against anyone), you can drop the incoming damage tremendously with a few rounds of shield. In an environment where there are 100s of attacks flying around per adventuring day over 10s of rounds...the situation is quite different and you're going to take hits.

So rocket tag environments makes shield (and evasion tanking in general) more seemingly important. While a large number of low-intensity fights makes it less valuable.

Pex

2023-05-31, 06:23 PM

It sounds like we're mostly in agreement. What you're espousing sounds close to what the OP is saying, which I agree with. I wouldn't be bothered to see the Shield spell vanish (which I think is really the only thing you're disagreeing with), but I recognize there's a space for it to exist that isn't casters walking around in full plate stacking their AC modifiers to the moon.

With regards to game philosophy, this will come as a surprise to no one but I don't particularly like D&D's philosophy towards martials. In a story, heroes overcome their fear and fight monsters. In D&D, casters make their will saves vs fear and tank monster attacks with Shield, while martials get the Frightened condition and get mauled by Multiattack.

It's... offensive, to my delicate sensibilities, that this is the paradigm in the game. But it is what it is. I think not allowing Shield to stack with armor/shield is great. It means the caster can avoid a really bad situation, without letting them consistently tank better than frontliners.

But if it's so important that Shield exist, that casters can wade into melee and tank a boss monster's multi-attack, that casters not be vulnerable, then all I'm saying is fork over some of that love to the martials. Give them a reaction AC booster too.

I agree give the warriors some love. Here's hoping 6E does it. In the meanwhile for now warriors can get Shield spell by some means and boost their AC from full plate even more despite the 'stigma' of having to cast a spell to do it. I see nothing wrong with that. That's our divergence.

Theodoxus

2023-05-31, 07:18 PM

So rocket tag environments makes shield (and evasion tanking in general) more seemingly important. While a large number of low-intensity fights makes it less valuable.

It's almost like a 5MWD is detrimental to how the underlying math works... who knew?

CR sucks for determining both difficulty and how long a fight should take. You'd think that if you want many fights to avoid a 5MWD, you'd build them to be 'Easy' as defined in the DMG, a small squad of lower CR critters, but if you throw more than 1.5x the party size, you seriously risk TPK as action economy trumps all else. Want your players to keep truckin' on, throw single and weak pairs of critters. Whittle down their resources throughout the adventure day; don't make them spend more than 20% or so of their features on any one fight (and better to go with 10%). Then, when they're feeling cocky because they're only needing to burn one spell slot a fight, or a daily power after they got their short rest, hit them with the horde of goblins. They'll probably make it out if they play smart. But they'll certainly be wanting a rest asap.

Witty Username

2023-05-31, 08:56 PM

In a rocket tag environment where the entire adventuring day is 5-6 rounds of 2-3 monsters (so worst case ~30 attacks total against anyone), you can drop the incoming damage tremendously with a few rounds of shield. In an environment where there are 100s of attacks flying around per adventuring day over 10s of rounds...the situation is quite different and you're going to take hits.

So rocket tag environments makes shield (and evasion tanking in general) more seemingly important. While a large number of low-intensity fights makes it less valuable.

Low level play is a bit of a microcosm of this, (reasons why I don't like shield generally). Usually in low level play encounters tend to trend fast and deadly, because even things like goblins can wipe most or all of a player's HP in a single hit. This makes shield very effective because it can negate one or more hits very consistently. But also attacks will be less numerous (smaller encounters of enemies much easier to take out). So 1-2 rounds of actual danger isn't all that out there. This makes shield pretty potent at low levels even when 1st level spells are high cost, because it is well suited for momentary/not-garunteed danger.

Mongobear

2023-05-31, 09:46 PM

There is no WBL in D&D 5e.

False, DMG page... 38ish I believe has a table for "starting equipment for above 1st level." It's slightly different than 3.5e's WBL tables, but if your DM isn't keeping up with that table at a minimum, then he is being stingy and warping your perspective of how loot distribution is supposed to be.

For example, in a high magic setting, between levels 5-10, in a "high magic setting," which, lets be honest, nearly every canon setting outside of mayyyyybe Ravenloft is High Magic, whether the writers actually say so or not; a brand new freshly rolled up character should be able to have found a single Uncommon item, if a character being played level by level cant manage to find that or better, then that's a DM issue for not properly rewarding loot.

PhoenixPhyre

2023-05-31, 09:49 PM

False, DMG page... 38ish I believe has a table for "starting equipment for above 1st level." It's slightly different than 3.5e's WBL tables, but if your DM isn't keeping up with that table at a minimum, then he is being stingy and warping your perspective of how loot distribution is supposed to be.

For example, in a high magic setting, between levels 5-10, in a "high magic setting," which, lets be honest, nearly every canon setting outside of mayyyyybe Ravenloft is High Magic, whether the writers actually say so or not; a brand new freshly rolled up character should be able to have found a single Uncommon item, if a character being played level by level cant manage to find that or better, then that's a DM issue for not properly rewarding loot.

Those are not expectations, let alone system requirements. They're suggestions, and only for starting characters.

Witty Username

2023-06-01, 12:09 AM

Before we get too far down the WBL rabbit hole.
To state my point more clearly, why is +5 more acceptable than +3?
+3 armor is regularly considered a bridge to far, starting to be warping on the game, and is advised against.
Shield is +5, so, it must, at least in the moments its in use, be more concerning, and more warping.
If your game/table requires shield to "keep up", maybe instead of pressuring your party to take specific builds to be effective, what is wrong with the party fighter getting a +3 armor?
Or is the argument that +3 armor not mearly, within system expectations, but is insufficient to keep up with them?
--
As for the question of magic items, the system expects you to not have them, until you are expected to have them.

If you regularly include creatures with resistance/Immunity to non-magical weapon attacks, and don't allow the party magical weapons, as a DM, you are a dingus.

So we can say as density of resistant creatures goes up, the assumption of magic items increases proportionally.

When is this? The DMG says never. As a DM, I would say roughly about when monk gets ki-empowered strikes.

Saelethil

2023-06-01, 10:38 AM

It's almost like a 5MWD is detrimental to how the underlying math works... who knew?

Say it isn’t so! (Can’t figure out blue text on mobile)

PhoenixPhyre

2023-06-01, 10:47 AM

Say it isn’t so! (Can’t figure out blue text on mobile)

It's almost like a 5MWD is detrimental to how the underlying math works... who knew?

Yup. But in this case, there's a combination of the 5MWD playstyle and blindness to the effects. One of which is making things like shield seem vital and "right powered".

CR sucks for determining both difficulty and how long a fight should take. You'd think that if you want many fights to avoid a 5MWD, you'd build them to be 'Easy' as defined in the DMG, a small squad of lower CR critters, but if you throw more than 1.5x the party size, you seriously risk TPK as action economy trumps all else. Want your players to keep truckin' on, throw single and weak pairs of critters. Whittle down their resources throughout the adventure day; don't make them spend more than 20% or so of their features on any one fight (and better to go with 10%). Then, when they're feeling cocky because they're only needing to burn one spell slot a fight, or a daily power after they got their short rest, hit them with the horde of goblins. They'll probably make it out if they play smart. But they'll certainly be wanting a rest asap.

Well, sort of. The encounter XP multiplier is supposed to handle that, and there's a threshold at which more just doesn't cut it operationally. But in general you can do 1.5x as many monsters as PCs without significant issue. 2x starts pushing it, but I've done 12 monsters (10x CR 1 quaddrones and 2x CR 5-ish bruisers) against a level 9 party. That was a fun fight. Slanted much harder than raw CR would say because those quaddrones fire 4x/turn even if they're only 1d6+2. Oh, and fly.

I also had my 4 person level 5 party take down 10x tribal warriors without taking any damage at all...because my rolls sucked. No attack roll over 13, and that was against the heavy-armored rune knight. Most of the rolls were in the 3-6 range. And the party was even hampering themselves by fighting non-lethally (except the wizard analogue who couldn't really do that). But that's an outlier.

Dr.Samurai

2023-06-01, 11:24 AM

PhoenixPhyre

2023-06-01, 11:32 AM

I can easily see "resource drain by lots of easy encounters" turning out to be mostly HP drain, as martial attacks combined with scaling cantrips means a party can probably take out the single enemy or weaker two enemies without needing to resort to more powerful resources.

Yeah. One CR = level - 2 (ie threshold Easy) is going to be a joke--it's likely not even able to do significant hit point damage. Two CR = level - 3(ish) monsters are also going to be a snoozer.

Using (N = PCs) CR / 2 (a little lower at low levels, a little higher at high levels) monsters is, for me, about right for attrition encounters. Action economy is comparable, they're strong enough to hit but not strong enough to One-Round a PC.

But uncertainty is the critical thing. If every adventuring day is the same, they'll figure out a "solved pattern" of resource use. If one day has a big solo, another day has a big solo and then a few smaller fights, and another has the reverse, and another has a string of medium-ish fights, they'll always be watching their resources because they don't know what's coming. That way you also can have the patterns follow the ebb and flow of the narrative.

RSP

2023-06-01, 11:55 AM

If you regularly include creatures with resistance/Immunity to non-magical weapon attacks, and don't allow the party magical weapons, as a DM, you are a dingus.

Regularly using P/S/B Immunity creatures without providing non-magical martials means of getting around it (that is, magic weapons or a Magic Weapon spell), is going to slant the table’s effectiveness towards casters/Cantrips.

However, I don’t necessarily agree regarding Resistance: creatures with Resist B/P/S are designed to be that way. Handing out magic weapons to overcome that resistance begs the question “why have those creatures if you’re just handing out ways of overcoming their Resistance?”

To me, it seems similar to saying you need to hand out flame tongues if regularly fighting Mummies.

The creatures with Resistance are designed with that Resistance being a factor for them to meet their game play expectations. If you functionally remove it by providing a ready-made work around; then they’re going to be easier than expected. Similar to giving everyone flametongues: the Mummies will stop being as much a threat.

Amechra

2023-06-01, 11:58 AM

To state my point more clearly, why is +5 more acceptable than +3?

Because +3 (armor) and +5 (shield) aren't the same thing here.

If I have Shield, I get +5 AC for up to four rounds a day (depending on level). Outside of very short days, that means that you have to be really choosy about when you use Shield and when you don't. The longer your adventuring day is, the "worse" Shield is. +3 Armor, on the other hand, applies to every single round of combat forever — you can't, say, waste it by blowing a use on a turn where you don't actually need it, or by using your reaction for something else.

To put it a different way, if I'm a medium armor + shield user, I have a "base" AC of 19 (half-plate + 14 Dex + shield). If I have Shield on top of that, I've got 19 AC with a few short bursts of having AC 24. If I swap to +3 half-plate, I have AC 22 period.

...

Part of the reason why AC scales so quickly in early levels and then slows down glacially at higher levels is that it's less necessary at higher levels due to how much HP characters end up with. A 2nd level Fighter vs. an Ogre takes roughly half of their HP in damage each time the Ogre hits them, so the fact that they have an AC of 19 (so they only have to worry about 40% of attacks) is important for survival. A 17th level Fighter vs. a Balor takes half their HP in damage from a full round of the Balor focusing on them, assuming that both attacks hit and that the Fighter failed their save vs. the aura (we're assuming that the Fighter is a polearm user and doesn't need to worry about the retaliation damage from the aura, for simplicity's sake). Having an AC of 21 (literally just upgrading your mundane heavy armor) means that they only take that full damage 49% of the time.

To put it differently... an Ogre gets a single attack that deals ~13 damage with a 40% chance to hit against a guy with 20 HP. A Balor that focuses fire deals ~10 damage and then gets a "single attack" that deals ~60 damage 50% of the time (and ~30 damage a further 40% of the time) against a guy with 140 HP. The Balor sounds more dangerous, sure... but it's actually dealing a proportionally lower amount of damage to the Fighter (with greater consistency, sure, but no individual attack is kill-you-in-one-hit dangerous). And that's before you consider that the party as a whole probably has better damage mitigation options after 15 levels.

Handing out magic weapons to overcome that resistance begs the question “why have those creatures if you’re just handing out ways of overcoming their Resistance?”

The thing to consider is that martial characters interact with damage resistance in a very different way to spellcasters. Spellcasters generally have a way to deal a variety of damage types, so a monster having resistances is just an invitation to swapping up your approach to the fight. Martial characters, however, generally just deal BPS damage — they can't adapt to resistances by just swapping weapons or whatever, meaning that "Resistance to Nonmagical BPS" is equivalent to just saying "this monster takes half-damage from the non-spellcasters".

Which isn't necessarily a bad thing, mind you — a lot of creatures with resistance to nonmagical BPS are in the high Tier 1/low Tier 2 range CR-wise, meaning that they make great boss fights in Tier 1 that gracefully turn into normal fights as the party gets their hands on magical weapons (or features that mimic them. or a spellcaster with Magic Weapon, or...). The game definitely assumes that martial characters are going to end up with some kind of magic weapon early on in Tier 2 — that's pretty much its only assumption as far as magic items go.

Dr.Samurai

2023-06-01, 01:12 PM

KorvinStarmast

2023-06-01, 01:26 PM

So rocket tag environments makes shield (and evasion tanking in general) more seemingly important. While a large number of low-intensity fights makes it less valuable. yes.

It's almost like a 5MWD is detrimental to how the underlying math works... who knew? Quelle surprise.

False, DMG page... 38ish I believe has a table for "starting equipment for above 1st level." It's slightly different than 3.5e's WBL tables Wrong. Not only is it not even close to WBL, it's a very wide / broad guideline that extrapolates likely magic item collection up to a certain point.

I've used it as both player and DM in a number of campaigns.
WBL it is not. Not even close.

If you look at the "roll random treasure by level and go from level 1 to 20," then the Xanathar's bit about magic items estimates about 100 magic (randomly allocated) (with about 60 per cent consumables) for a 4 person party.
They even break that down by rarity.

Even that isn't WBL.

PhoenixPhyre

2023-06-01, 01:32 PM

Based on some modules I've played through, I think the game doesn't just assume magic weapons, but that the "Rare, Very Rare, Legendary" tags are deceptive. I think the game assumes that martials will get these weapons sooner than I'd guess most people think.

Modules are horribly horribly horribly balanced. They're designed to shovel magic items at the players so they feel good, without any concern for what the system expects.

Looking at actual monsters, the "need" for magic weapons is highly variable.

Are you fighting predominantly extra-planar threats (fiends, elementals) or constructs? Yeah, you need them ASAP. Resistance (etc) are almost ubiquitous. But silver handles about half of the fiends, especially lower-level ones. And adamantite handles all the constructs (and can be bought mundanely per Xanathar's).

Are you fighting mostly humanoids, beasts, monstrosities, giants, oozes, and even dragons? Nah, you don't need them at all.

Undead sit somewhere in the middle, with incorporeal undead having resistance and corporeal undead only sometimes having resistance. Fey are a mixed bag, as are aberrations. Plants are weird, with a few non-standard resistances (cf Treants).

IMO, handing out magic weapons like candy in low T2 does two things.

1. It makes monks and moon druids feel like they have a catch-up feature, not a cool thing in their magic attacks.
2. It strongly devalues things like silver weapons, magic weapon (the spell), and other sources of magical BPS that aren't just the weapon.

So my reading is that the system expects
1. Nothing until high T2 unless the campaign is heavy with resistant creatures. So Avernus? Yeah, give them magic early. Against the Giants? Nah.
2. High T2 into T3 you should have a magic weapon. It does not need to have a +X or even any extra damage. A straight moontouched blade will work just fine from the system's point of view.
3. Having a cool thing with added damage and/or a +X is nifty in mid T3+. But never expected.

KorvinStarmast

2023-06-01, 01:34 PM

I also had my 4 person level 5 party take down 10x tribal warriors without taking any damage at all...because my rolls sucked. No attack roll over 13, and that was against the heavy-armored rune knight. Most of the rolls were in the 3-6 range. And the party was even hampering themselves by fighting non-lethally (except the wizard analogue who couldn't really do that). But that's an outlier. Yeah, that was an odd encounter. The dice were on strike, it seems.

Based on some modules I've played through, I think the game doesn't just assume magic weapons, but that the "Rare, Very Rare, Legendary" tags are deceptive. I think the game assumes that martials will get these weapons sooner than I'd guess most people think.
With an egregious example being white Plume Mountain (a level 8 adventure) holding three sentient weapons of substantial power ... IIRC they are all Lgendary.

Heck, we ended up with a cloak of protection at Char Level 3 after one of the Curse of Strahd encounters ...

noob

2023-06-01, 01:37 PM

PhoenixPhyre

2023-06-01, 01:44 PM

Or you could make it like other armouring spells: make it give you a fixed Armour.

A bonus action "your ac is 20 until the end of your next turn" (maybe 22?) would probably have some reasonable use. Use it before you go up close or when you're not in cover, then you have a turn of being protected.

Just spitballing.

Dr.Samurai

2023-06-01, 01:59 PM

Modules are horribly horribly horribly balanced. They're designed to shovel magic items at the players so they feel good, without any concern for what the system expects.
Well, assuming the module is a self-contained thing, then presumably it's balanced against itself. I don't mind feeling good when I get a legendary greatsword, as in our current campaign, or a legendary shield, as in our previous one :smallcool:.

IMO, handing out magic weapons like candy in low T2 does two things.

1. It makes monks and moon druids feel like they have a catch-up feature, not a cool thing in their magic attacks.
2. It strongly devalues things like silver weapons, magic weapon (the spell), and other sources of magical BPS that aren't just the weapon.

I am... perfectly okay with this. Monks and druids get those features because they rely on something other than weapons to attack, and weapons can be made magical. I don't think we should look at the monk and druid feature as something unique that is part of their identity, but exactly as "martials get magic weapons, and you'll need that at some point, so here your unarmed strikes are magical".

So my reading is that the system expects
1. Nothing until high T2 unless the campaign is heavy with resistant creatures. So Avernus? Yeah, give them magic early. Against the Giants? Nah.
The funny thing is that this is opposite to my experience. In Avernus, I got a legendary shield pretty early on, but a magic weapon was hard to come by and very much needed. By the time I got a magic longsword, we were deep into Avernus on our war machines. By the time the ranger got a magic bow, we were even deeper, and that was a reward for a character-centric side-quest the DM implemented.

In Against the Giants, I have myself a nice legendary greatsword, and we've also found a magic shield, magic armor, a Flametongue Shortsword, a magic javelin, etc etc. We're also in the middle of fighting some yetis and their leader is wielding a greatsword that was described and looks awesome so... probably another magic weapon lol (though could just be ornate).

My issue with this is that magic weapons are fun and a trope, and by this reasoning you'd hardly ever get them unless you start your game out at higher levels. As we know, most games don't reach high tier 2.

Pex

2023-06-01, 02:11 PM

It's almost like a 5MWD is detrimental to how the underlying math works... who knew?

CR sucks for determining both difficulty and how long a fight should take. You'd think that if you want many fights to avoid a 5MWD, you'd build them to be 'Easy' as defined in the DMG, a small squad of lower CR critters, but if you throw more than 1.5x the party size, you seriously risk TPK as action economy trumps all else. Want your players to keep truckin' on, throw single and weak pairs of critters. Whittle down their resources throughout the adventure day; don't make them spend more than 20% or so of their features on any one fight (and better to go with 10%). Then, when they're feeling cocky because they're only needing to burn one spell slot a fight, or a daily power after they got their short rest, hit them with the horde of goblins. They'll probably make it out if they play smart. But they'll certainly be wanting a rest asap.

You're purposely sending weak enemies against the players for the purpose of extending the adventuring day because they don't need to use up resources every encounter, then you blame them calling them cocky because they did exactly what you wanted them to do of not needing to use up resources every encounter. How dare the players do what you wanted them to do.

Regularly using P/S/B Immunity creatures without providing non-magical martials means of getting around it (that is, magic weapons or a Magic Weapon spell), is going to slant the table’s effectiveness towards casters/Cantrips.

However, I don’t necessarily agree regarding Resistance: creatures with Resist B/P/S are designed to be that way. Handing out magic weapons to overcome that resistance begs the question “why have those creatures if you’re just handing out ways of overcoming their Resistance?”

To me, it seems similar to saying you need to hand out flame tongues if regularly fighting Mummies.

The creatures with Resistance are designed with that Resistance being a factor for them to meet their game play expectations. If you functionally remove it by providing a ready-made work around; then they’re going to be easier than expected. Similar to giving everyone flametongues: the Mummies will stop being as much a threat.

For one or two encounters it's not an issue. If it's most or every encounter then doing half-damage all the time is not fun. Plus there is also the inherent fun factor concept of imagination and coolness to be wielding a magic weapon for the sake of wielding a magic weapon. It's a toy.

PhoenixPhyre

2023-06-01, 02:22 PM

My issue with this is that magic weapons are fun and a trope, and by this reasoning you'd hardly ever get them unless you start your game out at higher levels. As we know, most games don't reach high tier 2.

I'm not saying don't give them out. I'm saying that you don't need to give them out. It's fine to have them (as long as the consequences are understood). It's also fine not to have them in early T2.

Currently, for my two parties (one at level 5, the other at level 8):
- The Rune Knight (5) has a silvered axe that deals 1d4 extra fire damage on a hit (imbued with some fire metal).
- The Hunter Ranger (8) has a magic bow that transforms into a magic quarterstaff. No other bonuses. He's also got a range of magic-adjacent arrows (a quiver that lets him turn arrows into trick arrows 3x/day, some other consumable arrows).

No one else has a magic weapon, but then...
- The monk (5) will be getting magic fists real here soon now (end of this session, actually).
- The moon druid (8) has magic paws.
- The wizard-analogue (5) doesn't use weapons much.
- The wildfire druid (5) has been known to bonk people with a staff occasionally, but mostly uses spells.
- The trickery cleric (8) has a silver whip but mostly uses spells.

They've had some small encounters with resistant things (the level 8 party had some were creatures that got smacked around hard), the level 5s had an elemental). But not many. And their current arcs are against humanoids. So no real need there.

RSP

2023-06-01, 03:09 PM

The thing to consider is that martial characters interact with damage resistance in a very different way to spellcasters. Spellcasters generally have a way to deal a variety of damage types, so a monster having resistances is just an invitation to swapping up your approach to the fight.

Sure, which is why I noted using lots of Resistant creatures without providing magic weapons would sway the balance towards casters and/or Cantrips.

However, I stand by the fact that it’s pointless to use Resistant creatures if the DM is then just obligated to provide exceptions to that Resistance. The creature is designed with the Resistance being part of what makes them dangerous: handing out ways around that, just means you’re throwing less dangerous enemies at your PCs.

PhoenixPhyre

2023-06-01, 03:28 PM

Sure, which is why I noted using lots of Resistant creatures without providing magic weapons would sway the balance towards casters and/or Cantrips.

However, I stand by the fact that it’s pointless to use Resistant creatures if the DM is then just obligated to provide exceptions to that Resistance. The creature is designed with the Resistance being part of what makes them dangerous: handing out ways around that, just means you’re throwing less dangerous enemies at your PCs.

I agree with this. One slight difference though is that even if the PCs have magic weapons, any henchmen or summons will generally not. But minions are their own ball of ugly balance wise, so... Not sure how that stacks up.

Pex

2023-06-01, 07:25 PM

Sure, which is why I noted using lots of Resistant creatures without providing magic weapons would sway the balance towards casters and/or Cantrips.

However, I stand by the fact that it’s pointless to use Resistant creatures if the DM is then just obligated to provide exceptions to that Resistance. The creature is designed with the Resistance being part of what makes them dangerous: handing out ways around that, just means you’re throwing less dangerous enemies at your PCs.

Resistance is folklore traditional and game legacy. It is only relevant at low level when it's not expected for PCs to have magic weapons. At mid-high levels resistance is glorified if not technically flavor text. It is crunch, but the creature's abilities are the significant factor of difficulty - high damage on being hit, saving throw effects, resistances/immunities that are not weapon related.

PhoenixPhyre

2023-06-01, 07:52 PM

Resistance is folklore traditional and game legacy. It is only relevant at low level when it's not expected for PCs to have magic weapons. At mid-high levels resistance is glorified if not technically flavor text. It is crunch, but the creature's abilities are the significant factor of difficulty - high damage on being hit, saving throw effects, resistances/immunities that are not weapon related.

DMG says that resistance to common damage types (and BPS is the most common) is worth
- 2x HP in T1
- 1.5x HP in T2
- 1.25x HP in T3
- 1.0x HP in T4

So...yeah. I don't think the system agrees with you on what's expected. 25% extra HP is not nominal.

Witty Username

2023-06-01, 08:01 PM

That is a thing, the system expects wizard, so don't worry grab a wizard and you will be fine.

Pex

2023-06-01, 11:15 PM

DMG says that resistance to common damage types (and BPS is the most common) is worth
- 2x HP in T1
- 1.5x HP in T2
- 1.25x HP in T3
- 1.0x HP in T4

So...yeah. I don't think the system agrees with you on what's expected. 25% extra HP is not nominal.

The value is going down, not up nor staying the same. The significance of non-magical weapon resistance is becoming less of a factor as the levels increase. This does not disagree with my point. I stand by it.

Witty Username

2023-06-02, 01:41 AM

However, I stand by the fact that it’s pointless to use Resistant creatures if the DM is then just obligated to provide exceptions to that Resistance. The creature is designed with the Resistance being part of what makes them dangerous: handing out ways around that, just means you’re throwing less dangerous enemies at your PCs.

Not really,
Like say if you have a set of magic daggers. Because of how attacks work this will do more damage through resistance, but it is still noticeable that the greatsword user isn't using the prefered weapon.

Also, while 5e ran screaming from this direction, having enemies with some resistances and exploitable weakness encourages characters to plan and prepare.

The greatest sin of 5e is removing damage resistance against slashing and piercing weapons from skeletons. But the vulnerability to bludgeoning damage still carries the effects of this kind of thinking.

While I say there is somewhat the thinking that enemies are expected to include resistance as part of there difficultly, I would find it a stretch if, say, because skeletons don't resist warhammers, that warhammers shouldn't exist in the game.

Challenge should be manageable for a party, either by allowing for effective planning, regulated danger, or alternatives to fighting.

Enemies in significant number with resistance to weapons, don't really fit into this apart from, well don't play martials.

Now, if damage types were better differentiated for weapons, this would be a non-issue.

Kane0

2023-06-02, 02:42 AM

Tell you what, fighting a were-croc at level 4 was interesting. We had a shillelagh cleric and armor artificer but the monk and fighter were having a real hard time until we remembered we had a +1 dagger and there was also a magic hand crossbow literally chekov gun'd on the wall in the next room

Theodoxus

2023-06-02, 09:41 AM

Not really,
Like say if you have a set of magic daggers. Because of how attacks work this will do more damage through resistance, but it is still noticeable that the greatsword user isn't using the prefered weapon.

Also, while 5e ran screaming from this direction, having enemies with some resistances and exploitable weakness encourages characters to plan and prepare.

The greatest sin of 5e is removing damage resistance against slashing and piercing weapons from skeletons. But the vulnerability to bludgeoning damage still carries the effects of this kind of thinking.

While I say there is somewhat the thinking that enemies are expected to include resistance as part of there difficultly, I would find it a stretch if, say, because skeletons don't resist warhammers, that warhammers shouldn't exist in the game.

Challenge should be manageable for a party, either by allowing for effective planning, regulated danger, or alternatives to fighting.

Enemies in significant number with resistance to weapons, don't really fit into this apart from, well don't play martials.

Now, if damage types were better differentiated for weapons, this would be a non-issue.

I monkeyed around with making armor types have resistances and vulnerabilities, in a rock/paper/scissors type deal. I think it would work fantastically at a video game level, where the calculations could be done by computer. At the table level, it left much to be desired. The aesthetics were greatly appreciated by the players; but the massive time increase in fights slowed the experiment to a crawl. Plus players were optimizing for multiple damage types, carrying swords and hammers and rapiers like the golf-bag meme... it was ditched after one session.

Witty Username

2023-06-02, 09:49 AM

Having played 2E mostly through the computer games I definitely agree with that, I did really like having different ACs for every damage type. But it is alot to track.

That being said, in 3.5 things like DR 10/slashing weren't all that difficult, I will admit to flubs but that will happen with just about every passive abilities, in 5e legendary resistance is the most forgotten trait for my table.

I prefer the golf bag personally, it reminds me of needing to bring two weapons for every fight with draconians.

diplomancer

2023-06-02, 09:50 AM

KorvinStarmast

2023-06-02, 10:05 AM

I remember 2nd edition had bonuses to hit according to weapon type vs. armor as an optional rule; it looked fine in theory, and made some weapons look more interesting, but it was also way too fiddly. Generally, you don't want to be consulting tables during combat.
The hit versus weapon type and armor type was in AD&D 1e (we used it a lot) but had been introduced in Greyhawk in Original D&D as a carry over of the simulationist themes in Chainmail and other miniatures games. It did not slow combat down for us, though.

All you had to do as a player was build a little table on your char sheet for each weapon you were proficient with, and it did not slow down play since you rolled, added up the totals, and report the result. Not hard.

Of course, that meant that the player had to actually do some work/prep so that the game ran smoothly. :smallwink:

Where it got to be frustrating for any number of players was that Monster AC and Armor Type didn't translate smoothly with a lot of AC for monsters. As DM I eventually only used that table / mod for fighting against opponents in armor: an evil knight in plate armor, a bandit chieften in scale mail, etc.

Monster Armor Class was simply the number on the usual To Hit chart, go.

PhoenixPhyre

2023-06-02, 10:07 AM

I monkeyed around with making armor types have resistances and vulnerabilities, in a rock/paper/scissors type deal. I think it would work fantastically at a video game level, where the calculations could be done by computer. At the table level, it left much to be desired. The aesthetics were greatly appreciated by the players; but the massive time increase in fights slowed the experiment to a crawl. Plus players were optimizing for multiple damage types, carrying swords and hammers and rapiers like the golf-bag meme... it was ditched after one session.

Yeah. Personally, I'm moving toward ditching resistance and (especially) vulnerability entirely as it affects HP and instead just directly adjusting HP. Keep immunities. Add in thematic things like the Flesh Golem's Lightning Absorption and Aversion to Fire where appropriate. So a fey or fiend that's "weak" to silver (ie has resistance pierced by silver) would now have some feature that has some non-HP effect when they're hit with a silver weapon.

Resistance slows things down, especially as the number of mixed-damage attacks grows. Take a paladin with a weapon who smites. Something that resists non-magical BPS now requires you to roll the damage separately and remember which parts go with which and do math. And sometimes you have mixes beyond that. It also quickly becomes a solved game (especially vulnerability)--once they figure out X does double damage, there are two options. Either a player can't do double damage, so he feels like he's only doing half damage, or they can do double damage and they do and it falls over dead.

KorvinStarmast

2023-06-02, 10:11 AM

Theodoxus

2023-06-02, 11:13 AM

Yeah. Personally, I'm moving toward ditching resistance and (especially) vulnerability entirely as it affects HP and instead just directly adjusting HP. Keep immunities. Add in thematic things like the Flesh Golem's Lightning Absorption and Aversion to Fire where appropriate. So a fey or fiend that's "weak" to silver (ie has resistance pierced by silver) would now have some feature that has some non-HP effect when they're hit with a silver weapon.

Resistance slows things down, especially as the number of mixed-damage attacks grows. Take a paladin with a weapon who smites. Something that resists non-magical BPS now requires you to roll the damage separately and remember which parts go with which and do math. And sometimes you have mixes beyond that. It also quickly becomes a solved game (especially vulnerability)--once they figure out X does double damage, there are two options. Either a player can't do double damage, so he feels like he's only doing half damage, or they can do double damage and they do and it falls over dead.

I went a different tact (I still use this armor modification, though I'm moving away from letting players use it, as it does slow them down/create headaches):

Monster HP is divided in half. One half goes to Armor HP, the other remains monster HP. (an odd number goes to monster). AC stays the same, but I deduct any Dex and Proficiency Bonus (as equivalent to the monster's HD). This new number becomes their Defense. Any hit between Defense and AC hits their armor, reducing their Armor HP. Any hit at AC or above goes against their monster HP. If AHP goes to zero, their Defense now becomes their AC. (Or, all damage that hits their Defense carries through).

So, good hits will chew through monster HP faster than book standard, since they have half as much. Armor hits just make the combat last as long as it would have typically gone anyway. It does encourage attacks with saves, since they bypass the armor, but I'm ok with that too.

BTW, the resistance/vulnerability was only affecting the armor itself, so the right weapon could blow through armor quickly, but if you're hitting above the AC, it didn't really matter.

ETA: The really nice thing about using the split HP is I can manipulate the numbers of the fly, so if a particular mob needs to be tougher or weaker, I can adjust the AHP or MHP as needed.

PhoenixPhyre

2023-06-02, 12:12 PM

Sunday night we had an encounter where a cleric used flame strike (mixed radiant and fire damage) on an intersection with a mixed group of gnolls and fire giants.
As the DM observed: "OK it's gonna take me a sec to sort out the damage done). Ice Storm creates a similar problem versus foes resistant/immune to either cold or bludgeoning ...

I do not see the problem with silver bypassing immunity/resistance, though.

My thought was that if I've removed resistance and vulnerability (not immunity, but immunity to weapons is really rare), then having silver bypass resistance is...well...not much use. So things that thematically should react to silver (etc) should get features saying exactly what they do.

Pex

2023-06-02, 02:36 PM

Witty Username

2023-06-02, 02:41 PM

Snails

2023-06-02, 03:49 PM

I remember 2nd edition had bonuses to hit according to weapon type vs. armor as an optional rule; it looked fine in theory, and made some weapons look more interesting, but it was also way too fiddly. Generally, you don't want to be consulting tables during combat.

The 1st edition table made sense in a simpler and narrower war game where Armor Class strongly implied something qualitative about the armor a unit was wearing, beyond just being a numerical value. If it were simply about a number, I would bet my bottom dollar that Gary would have called it Armor Level so that new players could be completely perplexed about whether bigger is better than smaller (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0012.html).

But the moment you have a +1 shield in the party or lots of monster figurines on the tabletop, it is a head scratcher that confuses everyone. Is the thick hided rhinoceros wearing "leather armor"? Is the dragon wearing "platemail"? Does the +1 or +2 shield actually change the modifier on the table? What about a cursed item?

PhoenixPhyre

2023-06-02, 05:50 PM

So like for say skeleton, add immunity to piercing and slashing, remove the vulnerability to bludgeoning, and cut hp in half?

More trying to get an example of the line of thinking, then quibbling about the particulars of monster thematics.

Nah, just drop the vulnerability and add a feature like "when the skeleton takes bludgeoning damage, it must make a DC whatever con save or be stunned until the start of its next turn". Or some other feature.

For things like t1 devils, increase hp by 2x (or as appropriate) and add some effect from silver weapons. For t4 devils, no hp change. Etc.

Kane0

2023-06-02, 09:01 PM

Sickened or Dazed would be my picks

RSP

2023-06-02, 09:13 PM

Not really,
Like say if you have a set of magic daggers. Because of how attacks work this will do more damage through resistance, but it is still noticeable that the greatsword user isn't using the prefered weapon.

Magic daggers are, in fact, magic daggers. The great sword user using said dagger instead of great sword against the P/S/B Resistant enemy is the resistance having its intended effect: the encounter is now more difficult that if they were using said great sword.

That’s the point: for the resistance to mean something in the game play.

If the DM is obligated to hand out magic greatswords, then just remove Resistance to B/P/S from the game, or chose a different enemy.

But then that same DM should be obligated to give everyone Flametongues when fighting Mummies. Or their preferred weapon but doing B damage to PhoenixPhyre’s skeletons.

Witty Username

2023-06-03, 12:02 AM

If the DM is obligated to hand out magic greatswords, then just remove Resistance to B/P/S from the game, or chose a different enemy.

At least for me, that is shifting the argument slightly, magic hand crossbows are not obligated to fall from the sky if the PC picks XBE for example. But if you have them fight a rasksasha, and haven't been allowed to aquire a magic weapon at all, we have a problem. There is a wide gap between, magic weapons should be available, and specialty weapons should be provided with no hassle.

Pex

2023-06-03, 12:09 AM

Magic daggers are, in fact, magic daggers. The great sword user using said dagger instead of great sword against the P/S/B Resistant enemy is the resistance having its intended effect: the encounter is now more difficult that if they were using said great sword.

That’s the point: for the resistance to mean something in the game play.

If the DM is obligated to hand out magic greatswords, then just remove Resistance to B/P/S from the game, or chose a different enemy.

But then that same DM should be obligated to give everyone Flametongues when fighting Mummies. Or their preferred weapon but doing B damage to PhoenixPhyre’s skeletons.

No, everyone does not need Flame Tongues. Flame Tongues certainly help against mummies, but they aren't a needed specific weapon to fight them. Mace of Disruption is nice. So is Light Bringer. A simple longsword +1 works fine.

The obligation is only to facilitate the player's fun. His fun is in wanting to use a great sword. For that one battle where he has to use magic daggers because his great sword is not magical is fine. For every or most battles he can never use a great sword and must fight with daggers because the DM absolutely refuses to give him a magical great sword is a DM not doing his job. What the magical effects of the great sword are is up to the DM. It is not an obligation of any one specific Named weapon or magic effect, but it should be commensurate in power to the magic items other PCs are getting. It is also preferred to be commensurate with the level of the campaign. A Moon-Touched sword is fine for a 5th level warrior to have a magical weapon and a light source for the PC without dark vision. By tradition, legacy, a player yes is absolutely entitled to have fun in his imagination, the Moon-Touched sword is not an appropriate magic weapon for the 15th level warrior to be wielding. If that warrior happens to be a Paladin in no way shape or form does that weapon have to be a Holy Avenger. If the DM is fine with it being a Holy Avenger, great, but no one and nowhere is it being demanded.

Dork_Forge

2023-06-03, 05:24 AM

Kane0

2023-06-03, 05:26 AM

Amnestic

2023-06-03, 05:43 AM

You mean you dont cast animate objects on a pouch full of silver coins?

I believe adamantite shards are what's in vogue right now :)

noob

2023-06-03, 05:58 AM

Nah, just drop the vulnerability and add a feature like "when the skeleton takes bludgeoning damage, it must make a DC whatever con save or be stunned until the start of its next turn". Or some other feature.

For things like t1 devils, increase hp by 2x (or as appropriate) and add some effect from silver weapons. For t4 devils, no hp change. Etc.

That slows down the game a lot more than increased damage: you have to roll a dice for each skeleton hit by bludgeoning then have to apply stun penalties to the skeleton and it still gets its turn so you do not even save the time of having the skeleton act.
This is fine when a few skeletons is a normal encounter, it no longer is when it is normal for the players to encounter 10 skeletons 2 necromancers and a vampire and one player uses an aoe blunt damage attack(ex: hailstorm) then you have to roll 10 times for stuns (and 10 times for the saves too for a total of 20 rolls at once) and then look up which skeleton is stunned and write it on a sheet and remove it as the skeletons starts their turns.

Anymage

2023-06-03, 06:20 AM

Dork_Forge

2023-06-03, 06:22 AM

You mean you dont cast animate objects on a pouch full of silver coins?

*Me, a penniless heathen with a sack of common, unsilvered daggers*

Hopefully we'll run into monsters that aren't weaker to silver, then I'll be equal to the more superiorly prepared!

I believe adamantite shards are what's in vogue right now :)

lolll, I occasionally forget the hivemind gets those newsletters about what to do and what you should always carry as a caster because, duhhh. I just need to remember to make sure I build PCs that have encountered golems as a backstory so I can justify using it

Dr.Samurai

2023-06-03, 08:00 AM

You guys don't mint adamantine/silver alloy coins to use with Animate Objects? :smallconfused:

RSP

2023-06-03, 08:32 AM

At least for me, that is shifting the argument slightly, magic hand crossbows are not obligated to fall from the sky if the PC picks XBE for example. But if you have them fight a rasksasha, and haven't been allowed to aquire a magic weapon at all, we have a problem. There is a wide gap between, magic weapons should be available, and specialty weapons should be provided with no hassle.

First off, immunity is different than resistance, but I’ll play this game:

Assuming the “you” in “but if you have them…” is the DM, the DM is using the Raksasha for a reason. What that reason is, depend on the DM, the campaign, the PCs, etc.

Is it the revealing of the BBEG to lower level PCs, where if the PCs attack, they learn they have a long way to go before challenging this foe?

Is it presented to mid-level PCs as a way to let the CG magic rapier-wielding fighter shine?

Is it presented as a challenging opponent for early T3 PCs, who have to learn what in their arsenal can even affect this opponent, before being able to take it down?

Now, back to the original argument put forth of “the DM is obligated to provide PCs the means to overcome the resistances of monsters facing them” is still just foolish: resistances on monsters are provided to make those monsters more difficult than if they didn’t have the resistances. Necessitating that the PCs already have the means of overcoming resistances just means any monster presented to PCs is easier than the MM intends.

Now, you’ve decided to put forth a monster with a lot of immunity to try and sway an argument about resistance, but that’s a different thing, and a different argument.

I’m sure you’re aware of the difference between immunity and resistance, so I’ll assume this was an intentional move on your part and just leave it at that.

Martials are generally incentivized to focus on certain weapon types. The great weapon fighter might not know if they're in line for a greatsword or a greataxe, but a dagger is making a lot of their build investment to to waste.

Isn’t the build of the monster a waste if the DM is obligated to provide the means to overcome any resistance it has? Aren’t the monsters with resistances meant to be a certain level of difficulty because of those resistances? Isn’t that, then, just the DM making encounters easier for the PCs by granting them all the means to overcome resistances in a way that doesn’t even challenge the PCs to change strategies?

If the character chooses to go all in on a theme or plays someone like a dragon sorcerer who's highly incentivized to do so, they can mitigate the bite of resistance with the Elemental Adept feat.

What’s the point of taking Elemental Adept if it’s on the DM to provide the means to overcome Resistance anyway? Isn’t that a waste on the PC choice of feats?

TurboGhast

2023-06-03, 10:15 AM

For those advocating for the removal of resistances because of the inclusion of magic weapons:

Resistance and immunity can still affect summoned creatures and spells like Animate Objects. Blanket removing res/imm from the monsters has the potential of boosting spells that didn't need boosting and were meant, by design, to be kept in check by monster defenses.

I've also seen these resistances praised as an in-story explanation for why someone with an army relies on a group of adventurers to eliminate enemies that resist or are immune to nonmagical weapons. There aren't enough magic weapons in the world to field an army with magical weapons, but there are enough to kit out an entire adventuring team, so it's best to let an adventuring team handle these sorts of threats because an army would have a much tougher time taking them on (among other reasons the person with an army might want to keep it out of combat).

Dr.Samurai

2023-06-03, 10:37 AM

This seems like a weird conversation. I'm not sure what exactly either side is arguing.

But it seems to me that obviously monsters with resistances aren't always going to benefit from those resistances in any meaningful way. Like... if you already have a magic weapon the first time you fight some devil with resistance... that resistance is pointless. And yet the devil will still be a challenge, have other meaningful abilities, and serve a purpose.

These monsters are in no way required to be used in any type of way, or to show up at certain precise times in a party's career, etc.

Pex

2023-06-03, 11:44 AM

First off, immunity is different than resistance, but I’ll play this game:

Assuming the “you” in “but if you have them…” is the DM, the DM is using the Raksasha for a reason. What that reason is, depend on the DM, the campaign, the PCs, etc.

Is it the revealing of the BBEG to lower level PCs, where if the PCs attack, they learn they have a long way to go before challenging this foe?

Is it presented to mid-level PCs as a way to let the CG magic rapier-wielding fighter shine?

Is it presented as a challenging opponent for early T3 PCs, who have to learn what in their arsenal can even affect this opponent, before being able to take it down?

Now, back to the original argument put forth of “the DM is obligated to provide PCs the means to overcome the resistances of monsters facing them” is still just foolish: resistances on monsters are provided to make those monsters more difficult than if they didn’t have the resistances. Necessitating that the PCs already have the means of overcoming resistances just means any monster presented to PCs is easier than the MM intends.

Now, you’ve decided to put forth a monster with a lot of immunity to try and sway an argument about resistance, but that’s a different thing, and a different argument.

I’m sure you’re aware of the difference between immunity and resistance, so I’ll assume this was an intentional move on your part and just leave it at that.

Isn’t the build of the monster a waste if the DM is obligated to provide the means to overcome any resistance it has? Aren’t the monsters with resistances meant to be a certain level of difficulty because of those resistances? Isn’t that, then, just the DM making encounters easier for the PCs by granting them all the means to overcome resistances in a way that doesn’t even challenge the PCs to change strategies?

What’s the point of taking Elemental Adept if it’s on the DM to provide the means to overcome Resistance anyway? Isn’t that a waste on the PC choice of feats?

Not all fights are meant to be difficult. It is genuine fun for the players, the DM doing his job, when presented with a foe they must fight that has a particular defense the player can say "But I have THIS and can bypass it. 'Eat it you foul being!'" How many times does a DM say "It is dark. There are no light sources." and players respond, somewhat loudly, "I have dark vision!"? Same principle.

You also keep missing the point that it is not fun for a player for every combat encounter to not do what they want their character can do. Yes, the spellcaster has a dilemma when the BBEG of a fight is a Rakshasa. That is not a problem. That player needs to do something else than his standard operating procedure that battle. No one is complaining about that. The problem is when it's every fight. When the dragon sorcerer learns fireball, not every foe should be fire resistant for the rest of the game. If/when he does pick up elemental adept for fire, the player will feel on top of the world casting fireball against fire resistant creatures that do appear for the rest of the game. That fire resistance is no longer a problem/obstacle for him is the game working as designed. It's a feature. PCs are supposed to be able to overcome the defenses of the bad guys. Same principle with a warrior having a magic weapon in the form he likes.

PhoenixPhyre

2023-06-03, 01:03 PM

That slows down the game a lot more than increased damage: you have to roll a dice for each skeleton hit by bludgeoning then have to apply stun penalties to the skeleton and it still gets its turn so you do not even save the time of having the skeleton act.
This is fine when a few skeletons is a normal encounter, it no longer is when it is normal for the players to encounter 10 skeletons 2 necromancers and a vampire and one player uses an aoe blunt damage attack(ex: hailstorm) then you have to roll 10 times for stuns (and 10 times for the saves too for a total of 20 rolls at once) and then look up which skeleton is stunned and write it on a sheet and remove it as the skeletons starts their turns.

Sure. It was an off-the-cuff example. For skeletons (or other mass minions), I'd probably just drop the entire thing. No resistance, no immunity, no vulnerability, no change in HP. It's not worth tracking. For something like a lycanthrope, where silver vulnerability is more thematic, such things as giving them a lot of regeneration (of the "if they're at 1 HP or above" variety) that is nullified by silver. Not magic and silver...just silver. You can still kill them without it, but it's going to be a bunch harder. Big solos can get the special effects.

The point of a less cookie-cutter (vs slapping on resistance and immunity on everything) approach is that you can tailor it to the creature.

RSP

2023-06-03, 01:47 PM

You also keep missing the point that it is not fun for a player for every combat encounter to not do what they want their character can do.

I’m not missing any point. Nor do I believe Pex is the arbiter of what is, or isn’t fun, for anyone other than Pex. If your argument is “but Pex doesn’t find this fun”, that’s not anything I care to debate because I don’t think the rules for 5e should be catered to one person. Your table and your DM should care, but I don’t believe I fall into either of those categories.

Also, at no point have I said “every encounter a player should do something other than what they want”. I don’t care to argue points with you that you are making up.

Not all fights are meant to be difficult.

Again, not something I’ve ever claimed.

I stated the DM needing to provide players with the means to overcome monsters with Resistance before they fight those monsters makes the monsters less difficult then they are intended as presented in the MM.

It is genuine fun for the players, the DM doing his job, when presented with a foe they must fight that has a particular defense the player can say "But I have THIS and can bypass it. 'Eat it you foul being!'"

Again, I do not accept you are the arbiter of either “general 5e fun” or what is “a DM doing his job”: I’m not going to start arguing this with you: you have your opinions, which is great, but not anything I care to argue.

I will state, what’s the point of the player stating “But I have THIS…” when every instance that stating such is appropriate, every player ever can always say it, because the DM is obligated to provide every player with the means of defeating Resistance?

The fact that you believe those instances should be poignant to the Players, is, in my opinion, a point toward the argument that the DM shouldn’t be obligated to provide players the means of overcoming Resistance.

How many times does a DM say "It is dark. There are no light sources." and players respond, somewhat loudly, "I have dark vision!"? Same principle.

Another example that proves my point. If the DM is obligated to provide PCs with means to get around darkness, then what’s the point of having Darkvision? If every player has been provided, by the DM, the means to get around darkness, what’s the point of stating “I have [Darkvision]!”? Can’t every player just state that every time?

Perhaps every player stating such every time darkness is presented, is your idea of “fun 5e”, but again, I don’t agree that you’re the arbiter of all that is or isn’t fun in 5e.

Pex

2023-06-03, 10:22 PM

You answer in pedantry.

The point of monsters having defenses and the players having the means to overcome those defenses to make them obsolete is the game. It's the story. It's the drama. It's the imagination. The words printed on paper have meaning in how the game works. Without them everyone is rolling plastic polyhedrons with lines on them and spouting numbers to each other.

Amechra

2023-06-04, 12:27 AM

they can mitigate the bite of resistance with the Elemental Adept feat.

Now I'm honestly kinda curious whether or not Elemental Adept (Bludgeoning, Slashing, Piercing) would be worth it as a feat. Could you roll together, say, Elemental Adept (Piercing) with the Piercer feat without it being overtuned (maybe replacing the +1 to an ability score)?

...

RSP, a legitimate question: if you'd use a monster that's resistant to non-magical BSP to "sway things away from the martial characters"... what would you do if you wanted to sway things away from the spellcasters so that the Fighter/Rogue/etc gets a fight in the spotlight? Most of the stuff I can think of is either really focused (fire resistance might make things rough on a blast-y Sorcerer, but a Cleric or Warlock is unlikely to care that much) or is kinda high level (counterspells, antimagic fields, etc). Is there something I'm missing, like some low-level monsters that have great saves but poor AC?

In other words, if you had the classic Fighter/Rogue/Cleric/Wizard quartet, "throw a monster with resistance to weapon damage at them" is a simple way to make the Fighter and Rogue (and maybe Cleric?) swap up their tactics and let the Wizard (and maybe Cleric?) feel a little smug. Is there some similarly easy way to force the Cleric and Wizard to swap up their tactics while the Fighter and Rogue get to feel similarly smug?

RSP

2023-06-04, 02:32 AM

RSP, a legitimate question: if you'd use a monster that's resistant to non-magical BSP to "sway things away from the martial characters"... what would you do if you wanted to sway things away from the spellcasters so that the Fighter/Rogue/etc gets a fight in the spotlight?

It’s not necessarily resistance for either case (martials or casters). The rogue doesn’t care if they’re using a ranged weapon, a rapier, scimitar, etc; their damage comes from SA. The BM can still use their maneuvers regardless of resistances.

If, as DM you wanted to design an encounter around having a player or character shine, you’d need to know much more about them and the group to set that up, above and beyond PC class.

Also, if you just want a “make it harder for casters”, throwing Magic Resistance on any enemy would help.

You answer in pedantry.

The point of monsters having defenses and the players having the means to overcome those defenses to make them obsolete is the game. It's the story. It's the drama. It's the imagination. The words printed on paper have meaning in how the game works. Without them everyone is rolling plastic polyhedrons with lines on them and spouting numbers to each other.

Overcoming challenges is the point of the game (with varying levels of RP and storytelling). To help in that, we have premade monsters that are presented as being a certain level of toughness to overcome. By deciding the DM must provide players with the means of overcoming Resistance, you’re reducing how tough a challenge those monsters are versus how they’re presented.

It makes the premade monsters easier than they are intended, while making any monster with Resistance come with a prerequisite of “you have to provide your players X before using this monster in an encounter”.

VladSlavhinsky

2023-06-04, 05:34 AM

I personally think it's all in the resource economy. Wherever a slot is consumed, even if it is only a first-level one, there is a resource that is consumed. If this becomes a problem in all respects, a slight increase in the frequency of clashes, or of the figures that attack those who abuse the uncomfortable mechanics, can rebalance things, forcing them to consume the resource in question

Keltest

2023-06-04, 08:30 AM

Now I'm honestly kinda curious whether or not Elemental Adept (Bludgeoning, Slashing, Piercing) would be worth it as a feat. Could you roll together, say, Elemental Adept (Piercing) with the Piercer feat without it being overtuned (maybe replacing the +1 to an ability score)?

...

RSP, a legitimate question: if you'd use a monster that's resistant to non-magical BSP to "sway things away from the martial characters"... what would you do if you wanted to sway things away from the spellcasters so that the Fighter/Rogue/etc gets a fight in the spotlight? Most of the stuff I can think of is either really focused (fire resistance might make things rough on a blast-y Sorcerer, but a Cleric or Warlock is unlikely to care that much) or is kinda high level (counterspells, antimagic fields, etc). Is there something I'm missing, like some low-level monsters that have great saves but poor AC?

In other words, if you had the classic Fighter/Rogue/Cleric/Wizard quartet, "throw a monster with resistance to weapon damage at them" is a simple way to make the Fighter and Rogue (and maybe Cleric?) swap up their tactics and let the Wizard (and maybe Cleric?) feel a little smug. Is there some similarly easy way to force the Cleric and Wizard to swap up their tactics while the Fighter and Rogue get to feel similarly smug?

Sure. Hit the wizard. They have a D6 hit die and no armor proficiencies. Theyll be feeling it.

Witty Username

2023-06-04, 10:31 AM

Another example that proves my point. If the DM is obligated to provide PCs with means to get around darkness, then what’s the point of having Darkvision? If every player has been provided, by the DM, the means to get around darkness, what’s the point of stating “I have [Darkvision]!”? Can’t every player just state that every time?

Torches feel like a fairly low bar to expect from a DM.

But this has futher nuance even in the extreme example. Say we have the human, the elf, the dwarf, and the halfling. Sometimes, the human not having darkvision is a non-problem, the just pull out the torch and everyone is fine. But depending on the game, like one with heavy stealth, the human gets left at the front door due to liability. If a DM sees this situation form in play, and the human expresses frustration, they are not breaking the intended effect of the game with a character change or something like goggles of night to ammend the situation.

Pex

2023-06-04, 10:52 AM

Overcoming challenges is the point of the game (with varying levels of RP and storytelling). To help in that, we have premade monsters that are presented as being a certain level of toughness to overcome. By deciding the DM must provide players with the means of overcoming Resistance, you’re reducing how tough a challenge those monsters are versus how they’re presented.

It makes the premade monsters easier than they are intended, while making any monster with Resistance come with a prerequisite of “you have to provide your players X before using this monster in an encounter”.

Resistance is a problem to overcome, at low level. That's it not a problem at high level due to class ability or having a magic item is a feature, not a bug. It's no different than the 3rd level PCs need to traverse a chasm or walk around or find a bridge or go back but the 12th level PCs can go directly across via flying, teleportation, making their own bridge, or activating their magic item of chasm crossing.

RSP

2023-06-04, 04:13 PM

Torches feel like a fairly low bar to expect from a DM.

But this has futher nuance even in the extreme example. Say we have the human, the elf, the dwarf, and the halfling. Sometimes, the human not having darkvision is a non-problem, the just pull out the torch and everyone is fine. But depending on the game, like one with heavy stealth, the human gets left at the front door due to liability. If a DM sees this situation form in play, and the human expresses frustration, they are not breaking the intended effect of the game with a character change or something like goggles of night to ammend the situation.

To me, it very much depends on the Player: if it’s new player who made a stealth character not realizing the implications of trying to stealth around in the dark sans Darkvision, if I’m the DM I allow the player to make changes to their Race if they so desire. If I’m another Player, I’d recommend it to the DM.

But a seasoned Player who just wants the V Human feat, knowing what it entails? That’s on them: they can carry a torch, get access to the Darkvision spell via their class, or through a party member, or take the Eldritch Adept feat and select Devil’s Sight, get the Light cantrip, etc.

If they’re a sword and shield wearer, carrying a torch will be tough.

Are you suggesting you give your Players free Darkvision if they select a race that doesn’t have it? What about the Dwarf and Elf? What do they get for having selected a race that provides Darkvision? Do they all also get the benefit of a free feat at level 1 and Hafling’s Lucky trait?

If so, what’s the purpose of selecting a Race? Does opportunity cost mean nothing in your game?

If you have them fight Drow, who cast Darkness, do they then also get Devil’s Sight for free because that Player is unhappy not seeing in magical darkness?

Just curious how far you go with this.

Resistance is a problem to overcome, at low level. That's it not a problem at high level due to class ability or having a magic item is a feature, not a bug. It's no different than the 3rd level PCs need to traverse a chasm or walk around or find a bridge or go back but the 12th level PCs can go directly across via flying, teleportation, making their own bridge, or activating their magic item of chasm crossing.

It is, in fact, a feature if they have a feature like Ki Infused Strike.

Just like the PCs can only go directly across the chasm if they have a means to do so.

I’m curious how your games go. Do your Players regularly say stuff like “I don’t feel like dealing with any of the challenges you’ve decided to have us face” and you just go “that’s fine, everyone level up and choose a magic item!”

It seems like your answer is “just give the players anything they want”, which I’d suggest is not the way the game was designed to be played, but if it works at your table, glad everyone is having fun.

Keltest

2023-06-04, 05:05 PM

Part of the point of leveling up is to change the nature of the problems that you face. At level 1, a disease might be an expensive thing to cure and quite debilitating. At level 15, its a quick nap and a lay on hands.

RSP

2023-06-04, 05:42 PM

At level 15, its a quick nap and a lay on hands.

LoHs can cure disease at 1st level though…

Pex

2023-06-04, 06:51 PM

LoHs can cure disease at 1st level though…

There's a whole forest out there, not just the tree. It's not about Lay On Hands or the magic item. The game changes as the levels progress. There's always a new challenge once the players mastered the old ones. You're lamenting old challenges don't remain challenges.

Witty Username

2023-06-04, 07:45 PM

It seems like your answer is “just give the players anything they want”, which I’d suggest is not the way the game was designed to be played, but if it works at your table, glad everyone is having fun.

As I said,
In the Darkvision example, I would give torches. Past that it would depend on the party and the game.
Like say in the above example, that would be a group stealth party, where one person not having darkvision is a detriment to everyone, in that case some adjustments are in order. I would let the player pick a different character.

In the magic weapon example,
I would have things like magic daggers and things available. With specialty weapons being random or adveture hooks.

But I ask you, what would you allow? From your resposes it sounds like any access to overcome challenges at all is a detriment to the game. No torches, it is bad for darkvision races, no magic weapons, martials should suck at combat.

Like say would you remove the ability for a character to deal damage if a monster had a vulnerability to it? Because it makes the encounter too easy.

It sounds like you're against the players having any agency in the game.

RSP

2023-06-05, 06:13 AM

Like say would you remove the ability for a character to deal damage if a monster had a vulnerability to it? Because it makes the encounter too easy.

It sounds like you're against the players having any agency in the game.

Quite the opposite: the DM feeling compelled to provide the means to sidestep Resistance removes Player agency, as there’s no reason to make choices because you get everything anyway. Why not choose V Human and get a feat if you’re going to get free Darkvision for making that choice?

If fighting a creature with Resistance to P/S/B, and the fighter and rogue do half damage, the Monk is going to be like “I’m glad I have Ki Infused Strikes”.

In the game where the fighter and rogue just get magical weapons because the DM has to give it to them or “BAD DM!!!”, then the Monk’s KIS is just a ribbon feature as they would have been given it anyway, for free, had they chosen a different class to take at that level.

At no point have I made any points or arguments stating encounters should be easier or harder, so I’m not sure why you think that’s the case. A DM should plan encounters that they believe will be a good adventuring day for their Players/table.

The point I have stated is “if a DM is compelled to give players the means of overcoming resistance prior to facing a monster with resistance, then that monster will be easier than it was intended”, and that is because Resistance is supposed to provide it some sort of protection.

For instance, use the earlier suggest Rakshasa encounter. If the DM is obligated to provide casters a means to sidestep the Rakshasa’s limited Magic immunity, say by giving the party’s caster a ring that lets all their spells, regardless of level or cantrip, effect the Rakshasa; does the Rakshasa encounter become easier? Will it still represent the intended challenge it was designed to be, if you provide the Players the means to sidestep its defenses?

The answer is clearly that it becomes less of a challenge and an easier encounter.

Dr.Samurai

2023-06-05, 09:47 AM

If fighting a creature with Resistance to P/S/B, and the fighter and rogue do half damage, the Monk is going to be like “I’m glad I have Ki Infused Strikes”.

In the game where the fighter and rogue just get magical weapons because the DM has to give it to them or “BAD DM!!!”, then the Monk’s KIS is just a ribbon feature as they would have been given it anyway, for free, had they chosen a different class to take at that level.
This rankles me every time someone types it lol. The idea that my warrior can't get a magic weapon because the monk has a feature that lets them overcome resistance with unarmed strikes is so absolutely irritating to me.

The game assumes you will have 1 of 3 things to overcome resistances: spells, a monk, magic items.

The conversation so far reads to me like "if a DM feels compelled to include the last item in that list, that's bad because creatures with resistance will be weaker". And I recognize that you're saying you're not making a moral claim here like "this is bad if you do this", but it sure seems that way.

If you really are just saying "creatures with resistance are easier to kill if you can bypass their resistance"... well I can't imagine anyone disagreeing with that.

Witty Username

2023-06-05, 09:55 AM

For instance, use the earlier suggest Rakshasa encounter. If the DM is obligated to provide casters a means to sidestep the Rakshasa’s limited Magic immunity, say by giving the party’s caster a ring that lets all their spells, regardless of level or cantrip, effect the Rakshasa; does the Rakshasa encounter become easier? Will it still represent the intended challenge it was designed to be, if you provide the Players the means to sidestep its defenses?

Buff spells exist, if the wizard can't fireball, they can cast haste, for example.

And that gets around magic Immunity, does that make the encounter easier than intended. Yes, if you are dead set on characters not having a way around magic Immunity.

You have stated multiple times that magic items make encounters easier than intended, I.E too easy.

So I would have to assume that things like being able to target vulnerability and see in darkness.

If a character that is a XBE/SS build is against a Rakshasa and they have a magic rapier, is the encounter easier than intended?

From what I can see, you would say hard yes.

Segev

2023-06-05, 09:56 AM

Monks get that feature because they otherwise can't use unarmed strikes against such monsters. They may well get a magic monk weapon, but they can't use those with flurry of blows or even the monk bonus action attack (unless they found a way to use ki during their action).

RSP

2023-06-05, 10:29 AM

This rankles me every time someone types it lol. The idea that my warrior can't get a magic weapon because the monk has a feature that lets them overcome resistance with unarmed strikes is so absolutely irritating to me.

Nothing in what I’ve stated includes whether or not a warrior can get magic weapons: what I’ve stated is the DM should not be compelled to provide magic weapons before having the party face B/S/P Resistant monsters.

The conversation so far reads to me like "if a DM feels compelled to include the last item in that list, that's bad because creatures with resistance will be weaker". And I recognize that you're saying you're not making a moral claim here like "this is bad if you do this", but it sure seems that way.

I’m saying it’s bad for a DM to be compelled to hand out magic weapons. The DM should be free to determine if and how and when they want to produce magic items to their players.

I’m not sure why it’s a good thing to have any general rule of “DMs must play 5e THIS way”, when there’s clearly differences in how people enjoy playing 5e. The DM should always feel free to play to what’s most fun for them and their table.

Can a DM hand out magic weapons like candy on Halloween? Sure, if they think that’s best for their campaign/table. Can they decide they don’t want magic weapons in the hands of their players, and, therefore, not give them out? Sure!

Again, up to the DM and not something that should be “compelled”.

If you really are just saying "creatures with resistance are easier to kill if you can bypass their resistance"... well I can't imagine anyone disagreeing with that.

And yet you have the last page+ of posts…

Though, again, that’s only part of argument, the first part being, “the DM should not feel compelled to provide Players the means of overcoming Resistance.”

You have stated multiple times that magic items make encounters easier than intended, I.E too easy.

No. I haven’t. Please cite where you think I said this.

It’s completely up to the DM how easy or difficult an encounter is (this I have said multiple times).

So I would have to assume that things like being able to target vulnerability and see in darkness.

This isn’t a complete sentence, so I’m not sure what you’re assuming about vulnerability or darkness, however, if it’s based on the above falsehood, and not what I actually stated, I’d reevaluate your assumption.

If a character that is a XBE/SS build is against a Rakshasa and they have a magic rapier, is the encounter easier than intended?

From what I can see, you would say hard yes.

I’m not sure where you’re seeing that, because none of what I’ve stated deals with that. I’m not sure whose perspective you’re asking for here: the person who designed the monster, or the DM? I’d imagine the DM is aware of what magic items the Players have access to (as they’re the ultimate source of said items), so I don’t think the magic rapier has any impact on the DM’s intent with respect to the difficulty of the encounter.

Players absolutely should be able to decide how they deal with encounters, based on the resources available to them.

That, however, has nothing to do with the argument of “DMs are obligated to give Players means to overcome monsters Resistances”

Monks get that feature because they otherwise can't use unarmed strikes against such monsters. They may well get a magic monk weapon, but they can't use those with flurry of blows or even the monk bonus action attack (unless they found a way to use ki during their action).

This isn’t true: they can still use unarmed strikes sans KIS, against B/S/P Resistant monsters, they just do half damage. Same as a fighter would with a non-magical weapon.

Segev

2023-06-05, 10:57 AM

This isn’t true: they can still use unarmed strikes sans KIS, against B/S/P Resistant monsters, they just do half damage. Same as a fighter would with a non-magical weapon.

But not against immune monsters. And the point remains that the purpose is to keep monks' unarmed strikes up with the expectation that warriors will have magic weapons by then.

Dr.Samurai

2023-06-05, 11:16 AM

Nothing in what I’ve stated includes whether or not a warrior can get magic weapons:
The part I quoted seemed to be demonstrating that without magic weapons monks feel like they're getting good use out of their feature. But if others do have magic weapons, the feature seems wasted because they would have received magic weapons in lieu of it.

And my point is the determination to hand out magic weapons or not should not hinge on a monk's features. Monks also want magic weapons on top of their ki unarmed strikes.

what I’ve stated is the DM should not be compelled to provide magic weapons before having the party face B/S/P Resistant monsters.
This seems at odds with what you say later which is "there's clearly difference in how people enjoy playing 5e." Feeling compelled to hand out magic weapons should fall under your "everyone enjoys different things" umbrella.

I’m saying it’s bad for a DM to be compelled to hand out magic weapons. The DM should be free to determine if and how and when they want to produce magic items to their players.
Who is compelling the DM? What if the DM acknowledges your second sentence, and still feels the first sentence?

Can a DM hand out magic weapons like candy on Halloween? Sure, if they think that’s best for their campaign/table. Can they decide they don’t want magic weapons in the hands of their players, and, therefore, not give them out? Sure!
And also there's a whole spectrum in between of "no magic weapons" and "hand out magic weapons like candy". Phrases like the latter add a hint of "I don't want players to have magic weapons" to your comments.

Again, up to the DM and not something that should be “compelled”.
The game compels it though. The game says you need at least 1 of those three things. And you're saying "I'm okay with casters and monks being the only ones that can bypass damage resistance. The DM should not feel compelled to let martials join in on the action."

And yet you have the last page+ of posts…
I don't think people are arguing that point, is my point. Generally if I'm making a super obvious point and others are arguing against me, I start to wonder if there is a miscommunication somewhere.

Though, again, that’s only part of argument, the first part being, “the DM should not feel compelled to provide Players the means of overcoming Resistance.”
Why not?

Suppose a DM really wants to use devils in their campaign... but they don't want the battlemaster fighter dealing half damage the entire time because they know that might get stale with the player over time. Should the DM not feel compelled to provide a magic weapon? Should they abandon their campaign idea? Should they force the fighter to deal half damage forever?

PhoenixPhyre

2023-06-05, 11:20 AM

And the point remains that the purpose is to keep monks' unarmed strikes up with the expectation that warriors will have magic weapons by then.

Is it? Are you sure? Because I can find exactly zero information that suggests that warriors will have magic weapons reliably by level 6. In fact, I can find significant information that suggests they are not expected to[1].

If they were expected to have those weapons, something would say so. There is zero text to suggest that, and text that suggests the opposite (the gradual fall off of HP multipliers for resistances, for one).

Actually, I just found explicit statements to the contrary: Xanathar's Guide, 136, sidebar "Are Magic Items necessary in a campaign"

As DM, you never have to worry about awarding magic items just so the characters can keep up with the campaign's threats. Magic items are truly prizes. Are they useful? Absolutely. Are the necessary? No.

Magic items can go from nice to necessary in the rare group that has no spellcasters, no monk, and no NPCs capable of casting magic weapon...

[1] Note that not expected to =/= expected not to. They can, but the system does not expect them to.

Dr.Samurai

2023-06-05, 11:34 AM

The full paragraph is:

Magic items can go from nice to necessary in the rare group that has no spellcasters, no monk, and no NPCs capable of casting magic weapon. Having no magic makes it extremely difficult for a party to overcome monsters that have resistances or immunity to nonmagical damage. In such a game, you'll want to be generous with magic weapons or else avoid using such monsters.

It seems very clear to me that the game assumes you will be able to overcome resistances. If you can't by virtue of class feature (spellcasting, monk fists) then it says magic items become necessary. Otherwise, don't use monsters that have resistances or immunities.

Where this intersects with this conversation is that only spellcasters and monks natively avoid damage resistance. So this commandment of "thou shalt not be compelled to dispense magic weapons" is just messing with martials who otherwise don't have a way to bypass damage resistance.

PhoenixPhyre

2023-06-05, 11:39 AM

The full paragraph is:

It seems very clear to me that the game assumes you will be able to overcome resistances. If you can't by virtue of class feature (spellcasting, monk fists) then it says magic items become necessary. Otherwise, don't use monsters that have resistances or immunities.

Where this intersects with this conversation is that only spellcasters and monks natively avoid damage resistance. So this commandment of "thou shalt not be compelled to dispense magic weapons" is just messing with martials who otherwise don't have a way to bypass damage resistance.

No, the game assumes that someone in the party can overcome resistances. Not everyone. If you think that that means that the system expects all weapon-users to have magic weapons by level 6 (thus nullifying resistances entirely), I'm not sure what to say. That's expressly ruled out by the sidebar there which says in no uncertain terms that if you have any spellcasters, any monks, or any NPCs that can cast magic weapon, magic weapons are not a system expectation.

Dr.Samurai

2023-06-05, 11:46 AM

No, the game assumes that someone in the party can overcome resistances. Not everyone. If you think that that means that the system expects all weapon-users to have magic weapons by level 6 (thus nullifying resistances entirely), I'm not sure what to say.
That's not what I'm saying. I understand what it is saying.

That's expressly ruled out by the sidebar there which says in no uncertain terms that if you have any spellcasters, any monks, or any NPCs that can cast magic weapon, magic weapons are not a system expectation.
And the current conversation in this thread is basically saying "damage resistance is not meant to be overcome, if you think that, why not give everyone Darkvision?". And my point is the game very much assumes you're going to overcome damage resistance, whether through magic, an NPC caster, or a monk, or magic items if needed. Now, you can turn around and say "well, if you have a wizard in the party, then you don't need to give out a magic weapon". And I think this injunction about "don't be compelled to dispense magic weapons" in the context of monsters with damage resistance harms only martials.

It seems needlessly punitive, and contrary to fantasy tropes to boot.

Witty Username

2023-06-05, 11:50 AM

Isn’t the build of the monster a waste if the DM is obligated to provide the means to overcome any resistance it has?

No. I haven’t. Please cite where you think I said this.

And given your rant about Immunity. You claim that a martial character with any magic weapon qualifies as this.

PhoenixPhyre

2023-06-05, 11:59 AM

That's not what I'm saying. I understand what it is saying.

And the current conversation in this thread is basically saying "damage resistance is not meant to be overcome, if you think that, why not give everyone Darkvision?". And my point is the game very much assumes you're going to overcome damage resistance, whether through magic, an NPC caster, or a monk, or magic items if needed. Now, you can turn around and say "well, if you have a wizard in the party, then you don't need to give out a magic weapon". And I think this injunction about "don't be compelled to dispense magic weapons" in the context of monsters with damage resistance harms only martials.

It seems needlessly punitive, and contrary to fantasy tropes to boot.

No, I think you're misunderstanding the conversation. The thing is that some people (you included) are assuming that DMs must give out magic weapons by a low level or they are violating system expectations and being punitive. That is simply not true.

The system does not expect magic weapons. Full stop. Magic weapons are nice. True. But they are not expected. And certainly not by early T2. The game assumes that someone can overcome those resistances. NOT EVERYONE. Same goes for things resistant to fire--if you're a red dragon sorcerer, you should expect to hit things that are resistant to your main gig. And the DM isn't being punitive by doing so. Sometimes your main schtick isn't going to work. That's a good thing. It should work sometimes. But it shouldn't work all the time.

I've already stated my position, which is that I think that the whole "resistant to nonmagical damage" thing is a bad idea from the get go. I'm also 100% ok with giving magic weapons out, including very early. I'm also totally ok with not doing so.

It's the side that says that resistance to nonmagic weapons should not affect anything but summons after level 5, that that entire feature becomes null and void and that if a DM doesn't cater to that absolutely they're being a jerk that I cannot support. Especially when they make claims about system expectations that are just absolutely false.

It should also be noted that the effective HP (after accounting for resistances) is what CR is based on. So those monsters with resistances in T1/T2? Their CR assumes that the resistance will not be automatically nullified. They have less base HP than they would without those resistances, by either a factor of 2 or a factor of 1.5. The system does not expect resistance to nonmagical damage to go away by T2. It does assume that it will be a non-issue by T4.

Edit To be more succinct, there's a huge gap between the following positions:
1. DMs should never give out magic weapons. This is a position I do not believe anyone here holds, but it's what some people are claiming RSP and I hold.
2. DMs should be expected to give out magic weapons by level 6. If they do not, they're violating system expectations. This is a position that some of you apparently hold.

The truth lies in the middle. DMs can (and often should) give out magic weapons. But they should do so on a schedule that fits the campaign, the party, and the agreed on style. And whether they do so or not has little to no bearing on system expectations, which for the vast majority of parties do not expect magic weapons at any point.

Dr.Samurai

2023-06-05, 12:17 PM

No, I think you're misunderstanding the conversation. The thing is that some people (you included) are assuming that DMs must give out magic weapons by a low level or they are violating system expectations and being punitive. That is simply not true.
It's possible I'm misunderstanding the conversation, but I also have not stated either of the things you're levying against me here. There are no system expectations of low level magic weapons in the game (that I know of), and I am not saying DMs must hand them out at low levels either.

The system does not expect magic weapons. Full stop.
The rules you quoted have a giant caveat in it. And you ignoring this caveat is precisely my problem with the attitude toward damage resistance. It really only impacts martials that aren't monks. So people are pressing this injunction about "no magic items" and talking about the role and impact of damage resistance but... casters can ignore it already.

The game literally tells you to avoid using these monsters if you don't have a way of overcoming resistance/immunity. And you're all saying (without saying) "obviously there will be a caster in the party so the way to make damage resistance meaningful is to not give magic weapons to martials".

And given that magic weapons are not only interesting and fun, but also add power to a martial, this is, in my mind, a really bad reason not to give martials magic weapons.

It's not like a caster having to switch to a different spell to avoid Magic Resistance, or a damage resistance. It's just martials dealing half damage, and also not getting cool magic items.

It's a crap dynamic.

But yes... to be clear... I don't think DMs "must" hand out magic weapons, at any levels, nor do I think it is violating system expectations. But I do think it sucks not giving martials magic weapons at some point.

Edit To be more succinct, there's a huge gap between the following positions:
1. DMs should never give out magic weapons. This is a position I do not believe anyone here holds, but it's what some people are claiming RSP and I hold.
2. DMs should be expected to give out magic weapons by level 6. If they do not, they're violating system expectations. This is a position that some of you apparently hold.
RSP has said a DM should not be compelled to provide a magic weapon to overcome resistance. I've asked why that is the case and am waiting to hear back. It strikes me as saying there needs to be another reason to hand out a magic weapon, other than resistance, and it doesn't explain to me why achieving the same result for a different reason is superior than for another. In other words, if I hand my fighter a magic weapon because it's cool and I want him to have it, the impact on damage resistant enemies will be precisely the same as if I handed the fighter the weapon simply to overcome resistances. So the inclusion of the DM's intent/motive is confusing to me. The outcome is the same, which leads me to think that RSP simply doesn't want resistance to be overcome. Hence my comments to him in my last reply to try to clear that up.

I don't think anyone is arguing either position you've outlined there.

PhoenixPhyre

2023-06-05, 12:31 PM

It's possible I'm misunderstanding the conversation, but I also have not stated either of the things you're levying against me here. There are no system expectations of low level magic weapons in the game (that I know of), and I am not saying DMs must hand them out at low levels either.

The rules you quoted have a giant caveat in it. And you ignoring this caveat is precisely my problem with the attitude toward damage resistance. It really only impacts martials that aren't monks. So people are pressing this injunction about "no magic items" and talking about the role and impact of damage resistance but... casters can ignore it already.

The game literally tells you to avoid using these monsters if you don't have a way of overcoming resistance/immunity. And you're all saying (without saying) "obviously there will be a caster in the party so the way to make damage resistance meaningful is to not give magic weapons to martials".

And given that magic weapons are not only interesting and fun, but also add power to a martial, this is, in my mind, a really bad reason not to give martials magic weapons.

It's not like a caster having to switch to a different spell to avoid Magic Resistance, or a damage resistance. It's just martials dealing half damage, and also not getting cool magic items.

It's a crap dynamic.

But yes... to be clear... I don't think DMs "must" hand out magic weapons, at any levels, nor do I think it is violating system expectations. But I do think it sucks not giving martials magic weapons at some point.

I'm disagreeing with you on what that passage means, not ignoring it. Note that it says rare parties that have no spellcasters or monks or NPCs that can cast magic weapon. So no, it doesn't say "you" (meaning each character) should be able to pierce resistances without effort. The party should, as a whole. Yes, that may mean casting magic weapon. Or letting the monk shine. The system's expectations are satisfied if any single person can pierce resistances in an encounter. Not only if all people can do so.

And that may sound like a pedantic point, but it's important. Because reading it as "all must or don't use those monsters" leads directly to assuming that magic weapons are mandatory and not giving them out ASAP is a jerk move.

Personally, I think the whole resistance thing is stupid and should go away, making this a non-issue entirely. I personally think that having your class be dependent on magic items is kinda stupid. Magic items should always be a "hey, cool thing" and never a "must have to keep up." Stating that the system assumes you will have one is exactly the latter, and I don't like that. That was 3e and 4e's mentality, and deserves to live in the past. The idea that martials "cool things" are entirely tied to their gear is, IMO, a horrible design.

To be clear--I'm fully in favor of giving out magic items, including magic weapons. But I'm also totally fine with playing in groups where they're rare. The group I'm in as a player is exactly that--at level 8 we've found like...5-ish magic items, none of which is a weapon (or armor for that matter), despite having a ranger, barbarian, and fighter in the party. And it works just fine.

Beyond that, I strongly believe that this whole thing is blown way out of proportion. There are just not that many monsters in this category, and they're almost entirely in a couple specific types. If your campaign doesn't feature those heavily, you might not even realize it's a thing at all. Having resistance in a few fights? NBD. Sure, if it comes up every single fight, there's an issue. But it's totally fine if the casters or monk gets to shine in one fight. As long as there are fights where the others get to shine.

RSP has said a DM should not be compelled to provide a magic weapon to overcome resistance. I've asked why that is the case and am waiting to hear back. It strikes me as saying there needs to be another reason to hand out a magic weapon, other than resistance, and it doesn't explain to me why achieving the same result for a different reason is superior than for another. In other words, if I hand my fighter a magic weapon because it's cool and I want him to have it, the impact on damage resistant enemies will be precisely the same as if I handed the fighter the weapon simply to overcome resistances. So the inclusion of the DM's intent/motive is confusing to me. The outcome is the same, which leads me to think that RSP simply doesn't want resistance to be overcome. Hence my comments to him in my last reply to try to clear that up.

I don't think anyone is arguing either position you've outlined there.

Pushing back against saying that DMs shouldn't be compelled (a very very strong word) to give magic items is exactly the statement that DMs should be compelled (at least in some circumstances). That if they don't do so, they're playing wrong. That's position #2 in a nutshell. So yes, you and others fighting that are exactly taking position #2.

It is simultaneously possible to hold the position that DMs should not be compelled to give out magic weapons AND that DMs should, in general, give out magic weapons without contradiction. Compulsion is saying "if you don't do this, you are playing wrong and being a jerk." "Should" is a much weaker word. It accepts exceptions, it accepts cases where that isn't the case. And that's what the game expects. Should, not must.

RSP

2023-06-05, 03:09 PM

And given your rant about Immunity. You claim that a martial character with any magic weapon qualifies as this.

I am completely baffled. I have no idea how you determined this cited evidence:

Isn’t the build of the monster a waste if the DM is obligated to provide the means to overcome any resistance it has?

To equal this conclusion you came up with:

You have stated multiple times that magic items make encounters easier than intended, I.E too easy.

At no point have I stated, much less multiple times, that “magic items make encounters easier than intended” or “too easy”.

At no point have I said anything about magic items and encounters.

Please don’t make up stuff about me, and then ask me to respond to what you’ve made up about me.

But not against immune monsters. And the point remains that the purpose is to keep monks' unarmed strikes up with the expectation that warriors will have magic weapons by then.

I believe PhoenixPhyre addressed expectations already, so I’ll leave that.

Immune monsters and Resistant monsters are separate things. A Fighter using only a great sword can defeat a creature with Resistance to S. However, using only a great sword, the same Fighter cannot defeat a creature immune to S.

They are separate things, yet you want me to treat them the same: I don’t see them as the same.

If you want to argue what should happen regarding monsters with Immunity, make a statement regarding that, I’ll reply if I think I have something to add.

Don’t take my statements regarding Resistance and say “That has to apply to this other thing too!!” and expect me to treat them the same.

The part I quoted seemed to be demonstrating that without magic weapons monks feel like they're getting good use out of their feature. But if others do have magic weapons, the feature seems wasted because they would have received magic weapons in lieu of it.

The discussion had referenced characters having a tool to overcome Resistance. The Monk has a tool (at level 6) to do so. I was pointing out that giving everyone the ability to overcome Resistance as a necessity, makes it so the Monks ability is moot.

It’s similar to giving everyone that doesn’t have Darkvision free Goggles of Night to overcome vision issues (or just ignore lighting conditions altogether). If you do so, the players who chose characters with Darkvision rather than other traits will wonder why they did so.

However, if there’s only one character with Darkvision in the party, their ability will stand out more: much like the Monk with KIS will stand out when fighting a S/B/P Resistant enemy, so long as no one else is overcoming that resistance.

It was never a critique on the Monk or KIS in and of itself: just an example (like Darkvision) which seems to fade into the background if everyone is just given similar abilities.

I don’t care one way or another if any particular DM wants to hand out magic items, Darkvision, or whatever. I just don’t think DMs should be obligated to hand out magic items.

Likewise, if every just gets stuff to overcome any Resistances the party encounters, there’s not even a reason to note the Resistances as they’ve been made moot; and the DM should be aware when choosing the monsters for the encounter “hey, this monster with Resistance to S/B/P won’t be as tough as that resistance implies, because everyone will sidestep it anyway.”

And my point is the determination to hand out magic weapons or not should not hinge on a monk's features.

Nor should it hinge on whether or not a Resist P/S/B monster is going to be encountered that session.

This seems at odds with what you say later which is "there's clearly difference in how people enjoy playing 5e." Feeling compelled to hand out magic weapons should fall under your "everyone enjoys different things" umbrella.

It absolutely does! If a DM feels the table/campaign would best enjoy lots of magic items, then they should feel empowered to hand them out. If they feel the table/campaign is best suited to low or even no magic items, they should likewise feel empowered to not hand them out.

Arguing “DMs are obligated to provide the means of overcoming Resistance before the party faces a monster with Resistance” eliminates the DM to run their table as they feel fit.

Phrases like the latter add a hint of "I don't want players to have magic weapons" to your comments.

If repeatedly stating DMs should be able to run their tables as they feel best makes you think I don’t want players to have magic items, I can’t help you other than repeatedly pointing out I’ve not said that. What you choose to do with that info is up to you.

Dr.Samurai

2023-06-05, 04:17 PM

I'm disagreeing with you on what that passage means, not ignoring it. Note that it says rare parties that have no spellcasters or monks or NPCs that can cast magic weapon. So no, it doesn't say "you" (meaning each character) should be able to pierce resistances without effort. The party should, as a whole. Yes, that may mean casting magic weapon. Or letting the monk shine. The system's expectations are satisfied if any single person can pierce resistances in an encounter. Not only if all people can do so.
Yes, I know, I'm the one bringing this point up.

It is important to make this point because your position can easily fall into "no one can overcome resistance". Because if your party is 2 fighters, a rogue, and a barbarian, and they only deal B/P/S damage, and you go around saying things like "You should never hand out magic weapons just to bypass resistance", then your party is going to run into trouble. Trouble so dangerous that Xanathar's says avoid it if you can't overcome it.

And if your party is instead a diviner, a barbarian, a fighter, and a rogue, and your diviner is strictly utility and doesn't have strong magical attacks... an attitude of "you should never hand out magic weapons just to bypass resistance" might get you into trouble again.

And so on and so forth.

Everything is to be evaluated by the DM and let them judge. If they feel compelled to hand out a magic weapon to bypass damage resistance, that is perfectly alright.

Beyond that, I strongly believe that this whole thing is blown way out of proportion.
I agree. It's not a big deal if DMs hand out magic weapons, even if it happens before a monster with damage resistance shows up. When I got my magic weapon in our Avernus game, it didn't implode and we kept adventuring, despite the fact that my character was never impacted by damage resistance for the rest of the campaign.

Pushing back against saying that DMs shouldn't be compelled (a very very strong word) to give magic items is exactly the statement that DMs should be compelled (at least in some circumstances). That if they don't do so, they're playing wrong. That's position #2 in a nutshell. So yes, you and others fighting that are exactly taking position #2.
It's the other way around; I'm not saying people are playing wrong. You and RSP are saying a DM should never feel compelled to hand out a magic weapon to overcome resistance. That doesn't make sense to me. Who are either of you to say that? What if a DM wants to?

It is simultaneously possible to hold the position that DMs should not be compelled to give out magic weapons AND that DMs should, in general, give out magic weapons without contradiction. Compulsion is saying "if you don't do this, you are playing wrong and being a jerk." "Should" is a much weaker word. It accepts exceptions, it accepts cases where that isn't the case. And that's what the game expects. Should, not must.
Sure.

PhoenixPhyre

2023-06-05, 04:31 PM

Yes, I know, I'm the one bringing this point up.

It is important to make this point because your position can easily fall into "no one can overcome resistance". Because if your party is 2 fighters, a rogue, and a barbarian, and they only deal B/P/S damage, and you go around saying things like "You should never hand out magic weapons just to bypass resistance", then your party is going to run into trouble. Trouble so dangerous that Xanathar's says avoid it if you can't overcome it.

And if your party is instead a diviner, a barbarian, a fighter, and a rogue, and your diviner is strictly utility and doesn't have strong magical attacks... an attitude of "you should never hand out magic weapons just to bypass resistance" might get you into trouble again.

And so on and so forth.

Everything is to be evaluated by the DM and let them judge. If they feel compelled to hand out a magic weapon to bypass damage resistance, that is perfectly alright.

Hard cases make bad law. Exceptions make bad flow control. Sure, you can always come up with hypotheticals. But I question how frequent they are, and Xanathar's agrees with me (calling them rare). And in those rare cases, DMs should (not must, should) take special care. Just like they should take special care in many circumstances. I don't believe that anyone has said that you should never hand out magic weapons just to bypass resistance.

And again, if the DM wants to do it, they're not being compelled to do it. Compulsion only is for things that are against your will. My position is, very simply, the DM can and should do whatever his table needs. Any of the spectrum of options in this regard could be right or wrong. No outside force should put a thumb on the scale in any direction.

I'm opposed to making some kind of forum/internet hive mind that says "you must give every martial a magic weapon by level X or you're a bad DM and failing system expectations." Because that is pure toxicity.

I agree. It's not a big deal if DMs hand out magic weapons, even if it happens before a monster with damage resistance shows up. When I got my magic weapon in our Avernus game, it didn't implode and we kept adventuring, despite the fact that my character was never impacted by damage resistance for the rest of the campaign.

And it's not a big deal if they don't. Either. Heck, it's not a big deal if you have a monster with resistance that can't be pierced![2]

It's the other way around; I'm not saying people are playing wrong. You and RSP are saying a DM should never feel compelled to hand out a magic weapon to overcome resistance. That doesn't make sense to me. Who are either of you to say that? What if a DM wants to?

Compulsion only happens from the outside. By definition. If the dm wants to do it, phrasing it as a matter of compulsion doesn't make any sense.

DMs should do what they feel is best. In all cases. The system does not expect, and explicitly disclaims any expectation, that every martial will always be able to pierce resistance on their own. Or even that they'll be able to do so most of the time. That simply is just not part of the system. And saying that it is is flat out disingenuous and leads to bad table experiences (the "must have item X to proceed" phenomena).

If a DM wants to give out magic weapons for whatever reason (or no reason at all), they should do so. If they do not want to do so, they should not be made to feel like they're bad people/bad DMs for not doing so. Because that's what you're saying when you want to compel DMs[1] to give out magic weapons--you're saying that we, as an online community, should shame and attack DMs who do not. We should, in our own games, consider them to have failed as DMs (at least partially) if they do not. You are saying that not giving out magic weapons is a failure on their part, that they're playing it wrong by doing so.

TL;DR Compel is a very strong word. If we said "we should encourage DMs to not be worried about giving out magic weapons, generally", I'd be all for that. But compel? No. Hard no. No DM should feel compelled to do anything except provide a secure environment that allows people to have fun. Not even provides fun (since most of that's in the players' hands anyway), but doesn't make fun more difficult than it needs to be. What that means is almost entirely OOC.

[1] assuming you don't mean that you want to physically go to their sites of play and physically force them.
[2] I'd say that if you're going to use resistances, I'd flat out say that incorporeal creatures should have resistance to everything "physical". That is everything except force and radiant. Immunity to necrotic and poison, resistance to everything else but radiant and force. And lower HP than "normal", so it balances out. Heck, I did this against a party just Saturday.

Dr.Samurai

2023-06-05, 04:44 PM

It seems we're getting tripped up on the word "compel" and this has you thinking I'm some sort of weirdo that wants to shame people for how they play D&D, when I'm probably the furthest from that anyone can get, and the moral dictates are really only coming from your side.

People can feel compelled themselves to do things. In fact, in that context it means they are doing something because they feel it's the right thing to do. Like "Dr. Samurai felt compelled to argue against the idea that DMs should never feel compelled to hand out magic weapons to overcome damage resistance."

There can absolutely be times when a DM thinks the right thing to do is to give a player a magic weapon to overcome resistance. Throwing down commandments, and citing rules, mixed in with some amount of disdain strikes me as protesting too much. And making blanket sweeping statements about what people should and shouldn't do is tough to do in a game as fluid and variable as D&D.

Brookshw

2023-06-05, 05:03 PM

And it's not a big deal if they don't. Either. Heck, it's not a big deal if you have a monster with resistance that can't be pierced![2]

Personally I find it much more interesting when overcoming a monsters resistance is a matter of being clever or having investigated and engaged with the story. Playing modern and need to overcome silver resistance? Remember those silver earrings you saw in the gift shop? Take the buckshot out of the shell and load it up with earrings. Demon was previously defeated during a full moon? Fight it then. City celebrates victory over the demon legion every year by ringing bells, ring some bells in the fight. You get the idea.

PhoenixPhyre

2023-06-05, 05:15 PM

Personally I find it much more interesting when overcoming a monsters resistance is a matter of being clever or having investigated and engaged with the story. Playing modern and need to overcome silver resistance? Remember those silver earrings you saw in the gift shop? Take the buckshot out of the shell and load it up with earrings. Demon was previously defeated during a full moon? Fight it then. City celebrates victory over the demon legion every year by ringing bells, ring some bells in the fight. You get the idea.

That doesn't sound like Resistance (the mechanical "takes half damage" term) to me. That sounds like weaknesses. Things better modeled as traits that have them do something/be affected in certain conditions. Things like

* When hit by silver, the creature does not regenerate.
* During a full moon, the demon's stats change like <XYZ>
* When a bell is rung that it can hear, <XYZ> happens.

Mechanical Resistance is boring as a trait. And making it be pierced by something as common as any magic weapon just makes it forgettable...except when you have mixed damage types. Then it's obnoxious.

It seems we're getting tripped up on the word "compel" and this has you thinking I'm some sort of weirdo that wants to shame people for how they play D&D, when I'm probably the furthest from that anyone can get, and the moral dictates are really only coming from your side.

People can feel compelled themselves to do things. In fact, in that context it means they are doing something because they feel it's the right thing to do. Like "Dr. Samurai felt compelled to argue against the idea that DMs should never feel compelled to hand out magic weapons to overcome damage resistance."

There can absolutely be times when a DM thinks the right thing to do is to give a player a magic weapon to overcome resistance. Throwing down commandments, and citing rules, mixed in with some amount of disdain strikes me as protesting too much. And making blanket sweeping statements about what people should and shouldn't do is tough to do in a game as fluid and variable as D&D.

Remember that my first entry into this subthread was to refute (conclusively) that the system expects martials to have magic weapons by level 6. That is simply absolutely false. There is no such expectation and there is even the opposite of such expectation.

I'm not the one throwing down commandments or citing rules, except to counter statements about the rules themselves. I don't have any problem with a DM thinking the right thing to do is to give a player a magic weapon to overcome resistance. Because I don't have any problem with a DM thinking the right thing to do is to give a player a magic weapon for any reason whatsoever. I also (and this is where we differ, it seems) don't have any problem with a DM thinking the right thing to do is to not give a player a magic weapon for any reason whatsoever (except maybe "because I hate that player"). DMs should, IMO, do whatever they believe is right. And players shouldn't feel entitled to magic weapons. Nice if they have them, sure. Bitter if they don't...not at all.

I have utter disdain for the idea that any DM who doesn't give magic items at low levels is a bad DM. Because that's just risible bad wrong fun.

Brookshw

2023-06-05, 05:40 PM

That doesn't sound like Resistance (the mechanical "takes half damage" term) to me. That sounds like weaknesses. Things better modeled as traits that have them do something/be affected in certain conditions. Things like

* When hit by silver, the creature does not regenerate.
* During a full moon, the demon's stats change like <XYZ>
* When a bell is rung that it can hear, <XYZ> happens.

Mechanical Resistance is boring as a trait. And making it be pierced by something as common as any magic weapon just makes it forgettable...except when you have mixed damage types. Then it's obnoxious. Shrug, six of one, half dozen of the other, 'it loses its special protection' at any rate with resistance being a type of special protection.

PhoenixPhyre

2023-06-05, 05:50 PM

Shrug, six of one, half dozen of the other, 'it loses its special protection' at any rate with resistance being a type of special protection.

The problem is that Resistance isn't visible to the characters in the fiction, at least by default. It's pure game-level. Doing this as individual features means that you can make it visible in the fiction and tune it to the particular creature.

Generally, "you take half damage" is the most boring path possible on the monster side[1]. Just like any other pure number change. Because the monsters' health is hidden from the players. There's no real way to tell the difference between
- thing just has 2x the HP and
- thing has resistance to all damage.

And "try another damage type until one works" is boring and advantages those who can swap out damage types.

I prefer (and this is a preference, to be sure) if unnatural defenses are more special. If you can actually see it be staggered and lose actions when you ring that bell. If it no longer deflect your attacks if you smash the floating shields. Etc.

And for them to be relatively rare. If lots of things have special defenses, special defenses are less notable. That reduces the cost of doing bespoke features.

I'd only use Resistance for things that are effectively type-wide and very broad--any incorporeal creature is less affected by physical means. They pay for that with less health, so it mostly balances out. Yes, that's mechanically isomorphic to saying "they have 2x the HP and vulnerability to radiant and force", but the fiction is quite different IMO.

[1] it's great on the players' side of the table, ie when a player says "I take half damage from that." Because they can see their own HP going down less. Another case of PC/NPC asymmetry.

Brookshw

2023-06-05, 06:02 PM

The problem is that Resistance isn't visible to the characters in the fiction, at least by default. It's pure game-level. Doing this as individual features means that you can make it visible in the fiction and tune it to the particular creature.

Pretty sure you can find ways to describe it's unnatural toughness to bring it to the character level (e.g., you know your swing would normally have felled a bear but it barely sinks into the monster's hide).

Agreed playing it as keep grabbing tools until you find the right hammer for this nail is boring (to say nothing of weapons that bypass all resistances), hence why my preference to move the resistance to something outside of the toolbox which requires thought and engagement with the world (doesn't work out perfectly all the time, but I'm not about to let the perfect be the enemy of good). YMMV.

PhoenixPhyre

2023-06-05, 06:10 PM

Pretty sure you can find ways to describe it's unnatural toughness to bring it to the character level (e.g., you know your swing would normally have felled a bear but it barely sinks into the monster's hide).

Agreed playing it as keep grabbing tools until you find the right hammer for this nail is boring (to say nothing of weapons that bypass all resistances), hence why my preference to move the resistance to something outside of the toolbox which requires thought and engagement with the world (doesn't work out perfectly all the time, but I'm not about to let the perfect be the enemy of good). YMMV.

What I mean by "visible in the fiction" is visible ahead of time. Relying entirely on action-by-action narration can lead to some really meh situations[1]. If a fight lasts on average 3-5 rounds, wasting 2 of those trying to figure out what works is annoying for all concerned.

I mean, I'd be mostly ok with research based resistances. But I still think that tying it to the rate at which it takes HP damage is both on the boring end of the spectrum and annoying to track unless it's trivial, in which case why bother. If someone has to remember to ring that bell every turn, that's one more thing to forget. If once is enough...yeah. Just give it half the HP to start with. Or have ringing the bell drop it to half HP the first time.

[1] Had a DM who decided to make the shambling mound not only immune to fire, but any fire damage that it took made it catch on fire and deal area damage around it for a number of rounds, getting bigger (more damage) the more fire you threw. Without actually giving any indication that a fireball wouldn't actually work and adding a burning hands later would just make things worse. I strongly dislike "gotcha" elements like that, especially when you basically have to metagame to avoid them and there's nothing the players can tell ahead of time.

Dr.Samurai

2023-06-05, 06:20 PM

I also (and this is where we differ, it seems) don't have any problem with a DM thinking the right thing to do is to not give a player a magic weapon for any reason whatsoever (except maybe "because I hate that player"). DMs should, IMO, do whatever they believe is right. And players shouldn't feel entitled to magic weapons. Nice if they have them, sure. Bitter if they don't...not at all.
Yeah that's all fine and well.

Bear in mind that a comment on a forum is not necessarily condoning or condemning something precisely or unilaterally etc.

The text clearly states that the game is intended to be playable without magic items. You don't need them to succeed. Unless in certain rare parties, then you might need them. Okay.

So that's one part of this that I think we agree on. Not needed. DMs aren't wrong for not handing them out. Done.

I think it's a bridge too far to then say DMs should never feel compelled to hand them out. Because there are other aspects to the game than just the math.

It then is also a bridge too far to turn around and say I'm shaming people that don't hand out weapons, for saying that.

I think magic weapons are a lot of fun. And for classes with stunted class features, they can be a great addition. Casters already have a myriad of spells that let them do weird stuff. I now have my legendary greatsword that lets me detect hostile enemies within 60ft. It's a neat ability that I use similar to the Sword of Omens. So this "how dare you suggest a DM should hand out magic weapons?" attitude rubs me the wrong way.

A DM should never feel compelled to hand out magic weapons?

What if it would be fun? Still no?
What if the campaign has mostly devils and other damage resistant monsters? Still not a good reason?
What if everyone else is getting interesting magic items that synergize with them like spell books, bracers of armor, etc., still not a good reason?
What if it's rolled on a treasure table? Remove it?

It just strikes me as such an obnoxious thing to say, and smacks of not wanting martials to have a nice thing.

When someone says "The DM felt compelled to include magic weapons", that means to me the DM felt it was the right choice to make.

If you feel no one should ever force the DM to include magic weapons, just say that. That's pretty clear and I doubt you'll get much resistance. I'd only argue why magic weapons and not just all magic items in general; seems like certain classes are being singled out.

PhoenixPhyre

2023-06-05, 06:44 PM

Yeah that's all fine and well.

Bear in mind that a comment on a forum is not necessarily condoning or condemning something precisely or unilaterally etc.

The text clearly states that the game is intended to be playable without magic items. You don't need them to succeed. Unless in certain rare parties, then you might need them. Okay.

So that's one part of this that I think we agree on. Not needed. DMs aren't wrong for not handing them out. Done.

I think it's a bridge too far to then say DMs should never feel compelled to hand them out. Because there are other aspects to the game than just the math.

It then is also a bridge too far to turn around and say I'm shaming people that don't hand out weapons, for saying that.

I think magic weapons are a lot of fun. And for classes with stunted class features, they can be a great addition. Casters already have a myriad of spells that let them do weird stuff. I now have my legendary greatsword that lets me detect hostile enemies within 60ft. It's a neat ability that I use similar to the Sword of Omens. [1]So this "how dare you suggest a DM should hand out magic weapons?" attitude rubs me the wrong way.

A DM should never feel compelled to hand out magic weapons?

What if it would be fun? Still no?
What if the campaign has mostly devils and other damage resistant monsters? Still not a good reason?
What if everyone else is getting interesting magic items that synergize with them like spell books, bracers of armor, etc., still not a good reason?
What if it's rolled on a treasure table? Remove it?

It just strikes me as such an obnoxious thing to say, and smacks of not wanting martials to have a nice thing.

[2] When someone says "The DM felt compelled to include magic weapons", that means to me the DM felt it was the right choice to make.

[0]If you feel no one should ever force the DM to include magic weapons, just say that. That's pretty clear and I doubt you'll get much resistance. [3]I'd only argue why magic weapons and not just all magic items in general; seems like certain classes are being singled out.

[0] Compel === force. That's the meaning of the word. If you feel compelled, you feel forced to do something, usually by outside pressure. So when I say "DM's shouldn't feel compelled", that's exactly and only what I mean. Not that they shouldn't do the thing, merely that no one should force them, brow beat them, excoriate them, degrade them, or have harsh words for them for not doing so if they feel that's the right course of action.

[1] I don't see where you're getting this attitude. Again, saying "hey DMs, magic items[3] are fine, don't worry about handing them out" is 100% ok with me. What I dislike and was opposing were the statements that
* The system expects all martials to have magic weapons by level 6, so the monk feature is pure catch up (the initial statement that I refuted).
* If a DM doesn't believe that giving magic weapons is the right thing to do early on, they're a bad DM and should choose differently, because giving magic weapons by early T2 is always the right thing to do.

Those two I disagree with, because they fly in the face of the system and run into the gear treadmill and lots of other big issues.

[2] Whereas for me, "the DM felt compelled" is a much stronger statement--it means that they felt they had to, whether it was the right thing to do or not. Compulsion is a strong statement. If you mean "DMs should feel free to hand out magic items if they feel it's the right thing to do", we're in 100% agreement. Because DMs should feel free to do anything they feel is the right thing to do for the game. Regardless of what that is or what the rules say. At least IMO.

[3] I do include other magic items. The system does not expect[4] magic items of any kind. That does not mean that giving magic items is wrong. Far from it. But only that the system baseline does not include any form of required magic item except in extremely edge-case scenarios (and even then there are alternate methods that may work better). Period. Full stop.

[4] "system expectations" are specifically the floor. If you fall below that, you're playing it wrong. The system very much anticipates and is fine with magic items of all varieties. Even early on. It's actually fairly resilient to many of them (with a few notable exceptions). But it does not expect you to have magic items. The math of the system is based on no magic items, so that having magic items is always (again, except in rare edge case scenarios that can and often should be avoided differently) an optional boon. Never a "you must be this tall to ride" form of gatekeeping. And that's the big difference on this matter from 3e, 4e, and PF (both 1 and 2), all of which have "must have X features from magic items to function" baked into their core system.

RSP

2023-06-05, 09:26 PM

I think it's a bridge too far to then say DMs should never feel compelled to hand them out. Because there are other aspects to the game than just the math.

“Compel:
1. force or oblige (someone) to do something.

2. bring about (something) by the use of force or pressure.“

(Definition from Google Dictionary)

Do you think DMs should be forced or obligated to give PCs magic items?

Do you think others should bring about a DM giving PCs magic items by the use of force or pressure?

I don’t think so, but apparently others disagree.

Dr.Samurai

2023-06-05, 09:54 PM

[0] Compel === force. That's the meaning of the word. If you feel compelled, you feel forced to do something, usually by outside pressure. So when I say "DM's shouldn't feel compelled", that's exactly and only what I mean. Not that they shouldn't do the thing, merely that no one should force them, brow beat them, excoriate them, degrade them, or have harsh words for them for not doing so if they feel that's the right course of action.
Did someone say that DMs should be forced, brow beat, and degraded into including magic weapons?

[2] Whereas for me, "the DM felt compelled" is a much stronger statement--it means that they felt they had to, whether it was the right thing to do or not. Compulsion is a strong statement. If you mean "DMs should feel free to hand out magic items if they feel it's the right thing to do", we're in 100% agreement. Because DMs should feel free to do anything they feel is the right thing to do for the game. Regardless of what that is or what the rules say. At least IMO.
That is precisely what I mean and I think the language you and RSP are using is not precise enough and can lead to a misunderstanding. Saying "DMs should never feel compelled to hand out magic weapons" does not mean "No one should ever force DMs to hand out magic weapons". Or rather, it means more than that.

"Compel" means what you say it means, until you say something like "I feel compelled to fight injustice". Then it doesn't mean what you say it means.

“Compel:
1. force or oblige (someone) to do something.

2. bring about (something) by the use of force or pressure.“

(Definition from Google Dictionary)
Nice. Now look up "feel compelled".

Do you think DMs should be forced or obligated to give PCs magic items?

Do you think others should bring about a DM giving PCs magic items by the use of force or pressure?

I don’t think so, but apparently others disagree.
Nah. There isn't a dynamic here where one side believes DMs shouldn't be forced to do stuff, and the other side is real big meanie-head jerks that think DMs should be forced to do stuff. That would be real nice for you guys if that was the case.

If others have argued that the game assumes magic items, that is an argument about system expectations. They could be wrong on that, but it doesn't mean you can paint them as people that want to see the DM forced to do anything.

Like... this argument is not compelling (see what I did there?), and it isn't as strong a word as PhoenixPhyre thinks precisely because it has different meanings when used in different ways. A campaign might be going a certain way, and a player might speak to a DM, and the DM might find what the player says "compelling", and then feel "compelled" to include magic weapons. Nothing about either of those suggests that a person was "forced" to do anything. Just come out and use the word "forced" or "coerced". "Compel", when used in normal language, is not nearly as sinister as you two think it is.

If you phrase your point as PhoenixPhyre just did, using words like "degrade" and "excoriate", I sincerely doubt you'll have anyone disagreeing with you. What you are doing is saying "some people think magic weapons should be handed out in early game" and concluding "they believe DMs should be treated like animals and beaten into submission to serve the players", which is wrong (unless I missed some posts).

So... I'm glad we all agree DMs shouldn't be mistreated, and we've honored the long time internet tradition of disagreeing to agree. If a DM feels compelled to include magic weapons, that's the DM's prerogative and more power to them. Hopefully no one forced them to do anything though.

Pex

2023-06-05, 10:25 PM

Did someone say that DMs should be forced, brow beat, and degraded into including magic weapons?

Me, in a misconstrued misunderstanding my point kind of way.

[0] Compel === force. That's the meaning of the word. If you feel compelled, you feel forced to do something, usually by outside pressure. So when I say "DM's shouldn't feel compelled", that's exactly and only what I mean. Not that they shouldn't do the thing, merely that no one should force them, brow beat them, excoriate them, degrade them, or have harsh words for them for not doing so if they feel that's the right course of action.

“Compel:
1. force or oblige (someone) to do something.

2. bring about (something) by the use of force or pressure.“

(Definition from Google Dictionary)

Do you think DMs should be forced or obligated to give PCs magic items?

Do you think others should bring about a DM giving PCs magic items by the use of force or pressure?

I don’t think so, but apparently others disagree.

What the DM is compelled to do is provide a fun game. That's the point of playing. It is not fun for a player to be denied his character functioning through the overall play of the campaign because his fun is dependent on playing his character. (I'm not talking about oh no's he failed a save against Hold Person the game sucks now. I'm talking about general play of the game as a whole.) This is not Pex's Dictum. It's definitive. It's the point.

Stacking the deck against the player contributes to the player not having fun.

Sorcerer learns Fireball. Every monster forever more has fire resistance.

Paladin likes his steed and takes Mounted Combat feat. All adventures forever more take place in dungeons, swamps, and mountains or otherwise unsuitable for his mount.

A PC is human. All adventures take place in darkness and if he uses a torch or other light source all enemies will always surprise him. He always fails stealth because enemies see him coming.

The PC is a fighter. DM does not give him a magic weapon. All enemies forever more have resistance/immunity to non-magical weapons, and the player must rely on another PC casting Magic Weapon or else he is at half effectiveness for the rest of the campaign.

The PC is a barbarian who fancies using a great axe. He takes Great Weapon Master feat. At whatever level the DM feels likes it of his own gracious permission he introduces magic weapons into the game. There's a magic long bow, a magic dagger, a magic short sword, never ever will there exist a magic great axe, not even a great sword or maul.

If you think these scenarios are all hunky dory, then I proudly and gladly shout from the mountain tops without apology that DMs are "Compelled" and further more "5E requires it" if you need to point fingers of someone saying it. Not one of these scenarios imply a PC must never face a challenge. The sorcerer can still face fire resistance creatures who happen to be within 20 ft radius of each other.. The paladin can still have an adventure in the swamp. The human can need someone to cast dark vision on him or else the mission will fail. Before the DM feels like in his own gracious permission to hand out magic weapons, the fighter will face a creature resistant to non-magic weapons. The barbarian might not be the first PC to get a magic weapon. Despite using the great axe since level 1 he could fancy the magic maul that happens along when the DM feels likes it of his own gracious permission to introduce a magic maul into the game.

The point is not about the magic weapon. It's the PC having fun.

Witty Username

2023-06-05, 11:28 PM

So that's one part of this that I think we agree on. Not needed. DMs aren't wrong for not handing them out. Done.

I think it's a bridge too far to then say DMs should never feel compelled to hand them out. Because there are other aspects to the game than just the math.

It then is also a bridge too far to turn around and say I'm shaming people that don't hand out weapons, for saying that.

The thing I would note on this is that the value of something in a game is table dependent.

Through the lens of resistance, whether magic weapons are an improvement or detriment to the game will depend on frequency of resistance and party composition.

Take the party with one person who can regularly overcome resistance, the more resistance factors into the game the more this character will overshadow the rest of the party. (Warlocks are really good at this) This is generally considered a bad thing.

Magic weapons are a tool to mitigate this problem, as would homebrew or more judicius monster selection to reduce the volume of resistant creatures in the game.

This can apply to any number of challenges, not just resistance, flying enemies and melee characters is another. Now, a reminder about volume, the barbarian twiddling their thumbs for a bit while the 1 flying encounter of six happens isn't what I am talking about. I am more thinking where flying enemies are half or more of the regular encounters the party is facing. In this case something like a returning weapon, winged boots, or a swap to a ranger are all reasonable for a DM to do.

Or take say in the darkness example, the character being blind in the occasional night raid is darkvision getting its moment to shine. In a extended multi session adventure through a megadungeon, and the DM says that torches/lanterns/light spells aren't available, the player is going to spend alot of time at the table watching other people play. I think it is a stretch that a DM is still being reasonable.

And the other end of this, while challenge is good, challenge is best paired with tools to overcome. A werewolf is a challenge, but its best when players can be prepared or clever. Remember, everything in the game is provided by the DM. Having bought a silver dagger after doing some research, using a torch as a improvised weapon, or that silver letter opener in the study if the party takes time to search. All of this is part of what the DM grants the party, and can choose not to grant.
Or to use a resistance example, scarecrows (CR 1, so is an encounter reasonable for any party). Against an unprepared party they can be pretty dangerous and a slog. But they can be similarly brought down pretty quick with magic attacks or fire. I am of the mind that allowing torches as improvized weapons or a magic dagger in the attic if the party can get to it, is more fun then say, banning firebolt because it will ruin the scarecrows encounter.

RSP

2023-06-06, 05:12 AM

The point is not about the magic weapon. It's the PC having fun.

I’d say it’s the table having fun (all PCs and the DM). It’s not about a specific PC having maximum fun all the time: it’s about everyone involved having a fun experience over the course of the game.

Which is the point: if a DM isn’t free to run their campaign the way they think is best for their table, then that’s not right.

Did someone say that DMs should be forced, brow beat, and degraded into including magic weapons?

…So... I'm glad we all agree DMs shouldn't be mistreated, and we've honored the long time internet tradition of disagreeing to agree. If a DM feels compelled to include magic weapons, that's the DM's prerogative and more power to them. Hopefully no one forced them to do anything though.

That’s exactly what we’re discussing: should DMs be forced to provide magic weapons to the PCs prior to facing Resistant monsters.

I continue to say “no, they should be free to run their table as they deem best.”

If the DM doesn’t provide magic weapons prior to facing a B/P/S Resistant monster, others think they’re “BAD DM” which very well could fall under “brow beat”: “intimidate (someone), typically into doing something, with stern or abusive words.”

Think of how much effort you all have put into countering the argument “the DM should be free to run their table as they deem best, even when it comes to providing (or not providing) magic weapons.”

How dare RSP post something like that on this forum.

Segev

2023-06-06, 09:45 AM

I am quoted saying something unrelated, then chastised for telling RSP that he should treat "resistance" and "immunity" as the same thing, when I said no such thing. So I am going to suggest that maybe there's some emotion getting into this discussion and coloring how people are reading things.

I will not say it is a "bad DM" who lets, say, a party without magic (or silver) weapons face a wereboar. But I will say that I can understand the frustration of a martial player if he is unable to contribute in a meaningful way to a fight, when he built his character to primarily shine in a fight, and the only people who can do damage reliably are the spellcasters.

This doesn't even lead to a good "well, we must retreat from the horror monster until we can find a way to fight it more evenly!" attitude, because it is only the primary warriors who are suffering this deficiency in their normal effectiveness, and in the area they are meant to shine most (combat). Sure, they can grapple (if they're not dex fighters), or they can try to block with their bodies, or...something...but it's hardly as satisfying, and can lead to a kind of jealousy that can create a martial v. caster argument.

If anything, though, perhaps this is a sign that creatures such as lycanthropes should be immune to more damage types than just nonmagical B/P/S. Perhaps they should only take damage from magic weapons, and from spells if they've already been damaged by silver in the same round.

KorvinStarmast

2023-06-06, 10:13 AM

Hard cases make bad law. Exceptions make bad flow control. And bad policy. (Sorry, too many RL painful things to forget)

Compulsion only happens from the outside. That word seems to have taken on a life of its own in this discussion.

And I note that the discussion has drifted from the Shield spell to resistances and immunities.

And I feel that the 'gotcha' games are counterproductive, per the shambling mound example.

Dork_Forge

2023-06-06, 10:20 AM

And I feel that the 'gotcha' games are counterproductive, per the shambling mound example.

You've activated my trap card! I activate personal trauma

I played an immortal mystic in a campaign once, and we faced a shambling mound. I unloaded a massive amount of my Psi points into an attack to try and end it quickly.

That attack was lightning damage.

I wasn't first in initiative.

I heard about that for a long time.

Segev

2023-06-06, 10:34 AM

Dork_Forge

2023-06-06, 10:39 AM

Oof. The only thing worse is when you, the player, know about it...and your character has no reason to know, so you can't reasonably avoid doing what he'd normally do.

Oh I hate those situations, I still go through with it because roleplaying, but they hurt. Luckily in the shambling mound case I was vaguely aware the creature existed, but I'd never fought one, used one, or looked hard at the block so it was a complete surprise.

I don't mind mosnters have gimmicks, but gotchas usually just feel bad.

PhoenixPhyre

2023-06-06, 10:42 AM

You've activated my trap card! I activate personal trauma

I played an immortal mystic in a campaign once, and we faced a shambling mound. I unloaded a massive amount of my Psi points into an attack to try and end it quickly.

That attack was lightning damage.

I wasn't first in initiative.

I heard about that for a long time.

Oof. The only thing worse is when you, the player, know about it...and your character has no reason to know, so you can't reasonably avoid doing what he'd normally do.

Yeah. I totally agree on that point.

Same DM (good guy, great world, great descriptions, but his actual DM skills/encounter-building/pacing aren't quite there) ran a false hydra. One of the least fun things I've had in a long time. Because the options are
- very explicitly and obviously meta-game in the bad way
- not interact with anything at all.

It's railroading in a can, with a side of "you can break free, but only by doing something that makes no sense in-universe and you only know to do because you've read about these online." Shades of "read the DM's notes"...

Dr.Samurai

2023-06-06, 11:29 AM

Yeah I don't recall exactly all the details about the false hydra but I've seen some videos before and thought to myself "how does a group beat this thing without just knowing OOC what it's about?".

Pex

2023-06-06, 12:07 PM

I’d say it’s the table having fun (all PCs and the DM). It’s not about a specific PC having maximum fun all the time: it’s about everyone involved having a fun experience over the course of the game.

Which is the point: if a DM isn’t free to run their campaign the way they think is best for their table, then that’s not right.

The DM can have his fun. The DM who ignores the players' fun to get it is not a DM I want to play with.

RSP

2023-06-06, 12:20 PM

The DM can have his fun. The DM who ignores the players' fun to get it is not a DM I want to play with.

So would a DM running their table and campaign in a way they believe to be the most fun for the table as a whole be a better way to play, as compared to the 5e police mandating certain magic items needing to be given out at certain times regardless of what the DM thinks would be best?

I’m asking this question in terms of general 5e play.

Dr.Samurai

2023-06-06, 01:31 PM

That word seems to have taken on a life of its own in this discussion.
Yeah, I was just trying to explain what I think part of the disconnect is here.

Saying a DM should never feel compelled is not really talking about people forcing the DM to do something. It's saying the DM should never feel the given action is appropriate. There's a difference between being compelled, and feeling compelled, and we use these phrases differently.

That's why, in part, I think there is some pushback on this.

I also think you can agree/disagree here without calling anyone names.

Like... I agree with RSP/PP, and I agree with Pex. I don't think the DM should be forced to do anything. But I do think the DM has to have others in mind and may find that they have to compromise. I don't think that's a bad thing.

Pex is right, in my view. If the game isn't fun, the DM may have to do stuff that they didn't originally want to do.

Saying the DM should never feel compelled to hand out magic items is saying that the DM should never feel like handing out magic items is the right thing to do. I know RSP and PP don't believe that, and they've said as much numerous times, so I pointed out that it's the language that makes it seem like they're saying something much harsher than they are.

PhoenixPhyre

2023-06-06, 02:56 PM

Saying the DM should never feel compelled to hand out magic items is saying that the DM should never feel like handing out magic items is the right thing to do. I know RSP and PP don't believe that, and they've said as much numerous times, so I pointed out that it's the language that makes it seem like they're saying something much harsher than they are.

See, I don't see that first sentence at all. Feeling compelled to do something =/= feeling like doing so is right. There are a lot of things that I strongly believe are right that I don't feel compelled to do--I only feel compelled to do things that are against my will (or maybe better judgement)!

So a player threatening to leave the game if they don't get magic items? I might "feel compelled" to do so, even if I'm not sure it's actually the total best thing in isolation. Knowing that the system will fall apart if I don't give magic items? Or knowing there's a rule that we agreed on? Then despite what I might feel is right, I feel compelled to act differently.

I would never use the phrase "feel compelled" for something I wanted to do already. Compulsion only comes in when there is internal resistance to be overcome.

And as to "fun", I'm a little (only a little, mind) wary of "my fun depends on <specific thing here, whether that's magic items, specific build allowances, etc>". It feels...intensely selfish to me. And eminently abusable as a sword to hang over the table's head--"let me do <thing> or I won't be having fun and it will all be your fault." That is not an attitude I'd like to play with. If something's important to you, lay it out at session 0 and be willing to leave the table if it's not explicitly on menu. Don't leave it implicit and then expect the DM to somehow figure it out. And don't leave it open-ended, since that leaves the door open for expectation creep.

Oh, and if the game isn't fun...the players may have to do some things they didn't want to do. That door swings both ways, compromise involves both people. If you find yourself playing a human in a stealth-in-darkness-heavy campaign (and you knew it was going to be so), it's on you to advocate for and search out a way to contribute. Whether that's asking if you can quest for particular items or boons, or whatever. The rest of the table should be on board to facilitate things like that, but it's certainly not entirely on the DM to just hand you the means to overcome whatever weaknesses your character has. And some weaknesses will never be overcome and that's ok. If it's not ok with you...yeah. No thanks. I'll play at a different table.

RSP

2023-06-06, 03:11 PM

Saying the DM should never feel compelled to hand out magic items is saying that the DM should never feel like handing out magic items is the right thing to do..

See, I don't see that first sentence at all. Feeling compelled to do something =/= feeling like doing so is right.

I just don’t know how you post that “the DM should never feel compelled to hand out magic items” is the exact same meaning as “the DM should never feel like handing out magic items is the right thing to do.”

Those sentences are vastly different, with different words, that have different meanings. Stating that those sentences mean the same thing is just incorrect.

Pex

2023-06-06, 11:12 PM

So a player threatening to leave the game if they don't get magic items?

Context matters here. A player insisting on getting this one specific magic item of his desire or else he walks, show him the door.

Session 0 DM insists he will never, ever give out any magic items forever, player can walk without any onus of wrongness on his part because he enjoys having magic items as part of his fun. The player and DM are not compatible. If the DM is willing to change his mind, great, but he doesn't have to. The DM has no wrongness either.

The party is some level above 6, almost every foe being fought has resistance to non-magic weapons, the fighter player has no magic weapon and must always rely on another player casting Magic Weapon or else he does half-damage forever not being effective and says he needs a magic weapon, I cheer him leaving the table when the DM refuses. If you call that compelling the DM I'll gladly accept it as a compliment. It's not a design flaw of the fighter or the game. The DM is sabotaging the player's fun.

Dr.Samurai

2023-06-06, 11:39 PM

See, I don't see that first sentence at all. Feeling compelled to do something =/= feeling like doing so is right. There are a lot of things that I strongly believe are right that I don't feel compelled to do--I only feel compelled to do things that are against my will (or maybe better judgement)!
I know, that's why I'm pointing this out. I'm not saying it to be rude or anything but... you and RSP are saying something else than what you mean to say. Better to say that DMs shouldn't be forced or coerced.

"Feel compelled" has a different meaning, and makes it sound like DMs should never feel like handing out magic items.

And as to "fun", I'm a little (only a little, mind) wary of "my fun depends on <specific thing here, whether that's magic items, specific build allowances, etc>". It feels...intensely selfish to me. And eminently abusable as a sword to hang over the table's head--"let me do <thing> or I won't be having fun and it will all be your fault." That is not an attitude I'd like to play with. If something's important to you, lay it out at session 0 and be willing to leave the table if it's not explicitly on menu. Don't leave it implicit and then expect the DM to somehow figure it out. And don't leave it open-ended, since that leaves the door open for expectation creep.

Oh, and if the game isn't fun...the players may have to do some things they didn't want to do. That door swings both ways, compromise involves both people. If you find yourself playing a human in a stealth-in-darkness-heavy campaign (and you knew it was going to be so), it's on you to advocate for and search out a way to contribute. Whether that's asking if you can quest for particular items or boons, or whatever. The rest of the table should be on board to facilitate things like that, but it's certainly not entirely on the DM to just hand you the means to overcome whatever weaknesses your character has. And some weaknesses will never be overcome and that's ok. If it's not ok with you...yeah. No thanks. I'll play at a different table.
I agree. Context matters. We're not saying "If you don't give me a magic weapon, I quit!" is appropriate or should be tolerated.

I just don’t know how you post that “the DM should never feel compelled to hand out magic items” is the exact same meaning as “the DM should never feel like handing out magic items is the right thing to do.”

Those sentences are vastly different, with different words, that have different meanings. Stating that those sentences mean the same thing is just incorrect.
I mean... you could just google it...

It's not a big deal insofar as I'm not the "phrase police" and I don't care that you guys use the phrase in this way. But it may be why people think you're against handing out magic items, even when you keep saying "DMs should do whatever they want". Because saying they should never feel compelled to do something virtually means they should never have reason or want to do it.

1. Definition of 'feel compelled'
feel compelled
phrase
If you feel compelled to do something, you feel that you must do it, because it is the right thing to do.
Dickens felt compelled to return to the stage for a final goodbye. (https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/feel-compelled)

feel compelled
idiom
: to feel required (to do something)
I felt compelled to leave.
Recent Examples on the Web
The students feel compelled to follow Eva’s example of finding strength and pride in their identity. — Pam Kragen, San Diego Union-Tribune, 26 Apr. 2023
Fortunately, many people feel compelled to right wrongs — just not always the same ones. — Jacobina Martin, Washington Post, 15 Mar. 2023
Someone who has been more and more real in her portrayal of herself so that others might feel compelled to do the same. — Renee Marie Schettler, Outside Online, 14 Mar. 2023 (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/feel%20compelled)

formal
to produce a strong feeling or reaction:
Over the years her work has compelled universal admiration and trust. (https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/compel)

There are many reasons a DM might feel compelled to hand out magic weapons that do not include being forced to by a player.

Witty Username

2023-06-07, 01:41 AM

With some time to cool, I feel like there has been a conflation of degree and kind.
Should a DM provide magic weapons, feels like the obvious answer is, it depends.

The prime thing Dr. Samurai, Pex, and I feel the need to avoid is, the game frequently uses enemies with resistance, and there no means of overcoming resistance during play.
There are some subsets
-Casters overshadowing martials
-Players feeling like the lack agency in the game generally
-characters being bad at the area of the game they should excel in

But this won't exist in every game that uses resistance, sometimes it will be used sparingly, or effect characters roughly equally.

But some have taken this to mean, everyone should be able to overcome resistance if it is used in a game.
Saying a DM shouldn't be obligated to give players means to overcome resistance. With no caviots or nuance to consider these concerns, makes it come off that these concerns have no meaning.

And a quick thing, the DM providing magic items, doesn't mean freely given or timely. Like take the flametongue and mummy example, buying a flametongue at the corner drugstore feels like what people are complaining about. But a treasure room guarded by a monster, and requires the solving of a riddle or sacrifice of a hand is still the DM giving the party the flame tongue. As is a mummy armed with a flametongue for those with determination and a good Strength bonus.

KorvinStarmast

2023-06-07, 07:55 AM

Should a DM provide magic weapons, feels like the obvious answer is, it depends. If one leaves all magic items to be at the mercy of RNG by rolling on the DM tables, a magic weapon may show up or it may not.
Problem is, the genre of swords and sorcery has loads of magic swords imbedded into it. Not having one (eventually) detracts somewhat from the feel, but I recall that neither Conan nor Fafhrd had a magic sword and their S&S cred is solid.

But a treasure room guarded by a monster, and requires the solving of a riddle or sacrifice of a hand is still the DM giving the party the flame tongue. As is a mummy armed with a flametongue for those with determination and a good Strength bonus. And if the DMG optional disarm rule is used ... :smallbiggrin:

Dr.Samurai

2023-06-07, 08:56 AM

As is a mummy armed with a flametongue for those with determination and a good Strength bonus.
I love the idea of a mummy dual-wielding Flametongues in a ring of flame like "You think I'm afraid of fire? Come at me bro!" :smallbiggrin:

RSP

2023-06-07, 09:46 AM

Should a DM provide magic weapons, feels like the obvious answer is, it depends.

Agree.

The prime thing Dr. Samurai, Pex, and I feel the need to avoid is, the game frequently uses enemies with resistance, and there no means of overcoming resistance during play.

Why is there a need to avoid Resistance as a mechanic? Why is there a feeling that Resistance has to be sidestepped?

Should the DM only use enemies that deal psychic damage if one of the PCs is a Bear Totem Barbarian and often has Resistance to everything but psychic; “overcome it” so to speak?

The examples you use to justify “overcoming” Resistance seems to be very edge cases of niche situations where a DM is having a group consisting of all casters except one martial, only and consistently fight encounters where the enemies the PCs are expected to fight are Resistant specifically to the martial and their combat abilities, and that this situation wasn’t discussed during Session 0, and wasn’t an expected part of the campaign.

Basically, the example seems to be “DMs shouldn’t use Resistance to punish a Player or specifically make 5e unfun for them.” Which to me, in that view of it, appears to just be “bad DM” and doesn’t actually have anything to do with the Resistance mechanic - the “bad DM” has plenty of power in the game to make 5e unfun for a Player if they so desire, or “punish” the Player. It seems like you’re blaming the Resistance mechanic for the actions of a bad DM.

I’ve always thought of Resistance as a way to effectively double a creature’s HPs. This is very commonly how it’s seen on Barbarian PCs based on threads I’ve seen on this site (and others): you’ll have threads discussing “effectively doubling the Barb’s PC’s HPs.”

Why is the view of monsters having Resistance such a negative thing to you, compared to such a different view of the mechanic when a PC has it?

In campaigns I play, we regularly see enemies with similar abilities to PCs, including Rage-like abilities, spells, Advantage on attacks, etc. I don’t ever view this as “how dare the enemies have abilities like our characters”, or “it’s unfair that enemy can cast spells!” Its mechanics that differentiate enemies rather than just simple “bag of HPs that need to be reduced to 0”.

Legit curious why the default view of monsters with Resistance is “this is unfair and we need to remove it from the game (either via getting stuff that sidesteps it - like magic weapons in the P/S/B Resist example - or actually banning it from use in the game)” rather than “a defensive mechanic that increases a monster’s durability”.

1. Definition of 'feel compelled'
feel compelled
phrase
If you feel compelled to do something, you feel that you must do it, because it is the right thing to do.
Dickens felt compelled to return to the stage for a final goodbye. (https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/feel-compelled)

feel compelled
idiom
: to feel required (to do something)
I felt compelled to leave.
Recent Examples on the Web
The students feel compelled to follow Eva’s example of finding strength and pride in their identity. — Pam Kragen, San Diego Union-Tribune, 26 Apr. 2023
Fortunately, many people feel compelled to right wrongs — just not always the same ones. — Jacobina Martin, Washington Post, 15 Mar. 2023
Someone who has been more and more real in her portrayal of herself so that others might feel compelled to do the same. — Renee Marie Schettler, Outside Online, 14 Mar. 2023 (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/feel%20compelled)

formal
to produce a strong feeling or reaction:
Over the years her work has compelled universal admiration and trust. (https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/compel)

There are many reasons a DM might feel compelled to hand out magic weapons that do not include being forced to by a player.

It doesn’t have to be forced by a player: I think DMs should be free to decide to give magic items or not based on what they think will be most fun for the table, regardless of any compulsion, from any source.

Also, all your quotes back up what PhoenixPhire and I have been saying: compelled = force/pressure.

The term “feel compelled” means the feeling of being compelled (forced) is present even if there isn’t necessarily actual force/pressure. That’s what “feel” means in this use.

You can feel compelled to do the right thing: that is, one’s idea of morality provided the pressure to do whatever the person perceived as the most moral act, over doing something less moral. Such as reporting to the local police the wallet with $200 you found. You could keep it, but your conscience compelled you to choose otherwise.

“Compelled” never equates to “free choice”, which is what I think DMs should have.

I don’t think they should be compelled by friendship to a Player, or the need to “be nice” to a Player; IF the alternative would have made for a better, more fun campaign and 5e experience for the table. The net to that compulsion is still a drop in fun.

I really don’t think a DM should be compelled to do stuff based of the Resistance mechanic, as that’s just a poor basis for why you’re running a campaign a certain way.

Dr.Samurai

2023-06-07, 10:11 AM

You can feel compelled to do the right thing: that is, one’s idea of morality provided the pressure to do whatever the person perceived as the most moral act, over doing something less moral. Such as reporting to the local police the wallet with $200 you found. You could keep it, but your conscience compelled you to choose otherwise.

“Compelled” never equates to “free choice”, which is what I think DMs should have.
I don't have to do much here but to point out that you believe turning in a found wallet is not an act of "free choice". That should tell you that you may be misunderstanding how "compelled' is used differently depending on context. Saying "I had no choice, it was my conscience" is not going to fly with many people.

Anyways, don't let me get in the way of pointless internet debates; I love them as much as the next person. Carry on using the language as you see fit! :smallcool:

RSP

2023-06-07, 10:25 AM

I don't have to do much here but to point out that you believe turning in a found wallet is not an act of "free choice". That should tell you that you may be misunderstanding how "compelled' is used differently depending on context. Saying "I had no choice, it was my conscience" is not going to fly with many people.

Misquoting me, again.

I didn’t say definitely, in every situation, turning in a found wallet is not “free choice”.

I said it could be an example of “feeling compelled” by one’s morality. Maybe the person has a very good use of the $200, and would otherwise keep it, but their idea of morality puts a feeling of pressure that overcomes that need of $200.

They could then say “I felt compelled to do the right thing”.

One can, however, be free to make choices without compulsion.

The fact that you associate “free choice” with “compulsion” is where you’re getting tripped up: compulsion doesn’t equal free choice.

Dr.Samurai

2023-06-07, 10:49 AM

Misquoting me, again.
No I'm not. We're actually honing in on exactly the issue here, however minor it is.

I said it could be an example of “feeling compelled” by one’s morality. Maybe the person has a very good use of the $200, and would otherwise keep it, but their idea of morality puts a feeling of pressure that overcomes that need of $200.
You are using "pressure" very loosely here. The reasons someone might feel compelled to do something, such as morality or something else, are not synonymous with browbeating, degrading, forcing, etc.

Feeling "required" to do something doesn't mean you're being forced. Feeling a need to do something doesn't mean that you're forced to do it.

If a DM's proclivity is to go full RNG on treasure, but after months of playing everyone has cool stuff except one of the PCs, the DM might feel compelled to buck the RNG this time around and put in a specific item. The DM might feel required to do that to make sure the player is getting the same enjoyment from the game as everyone else.

None of this means the DM was forced to do anything.

One can, however, be free to make choices without compulsion.

The fact that you associate “free choice” with “compulsion” is where you’re getting tripped up: compulsion doesn’t equal free choice.
No idea where you are getting this from; you brought up free choice, not me. At this point, you are saying that if someone feels they should do something for reasons, that is a compulsion, which means they were forced, which is wrong.

This obviously doesn't make any sense.

PhoenixPhyre

2023-06-07, 11:20 AM

Completely sidestepping the whole wording issue--

My position is
1. DMs should give magic items (including but not limited to weapons) if and when they feel that is the right thing for the table.
2. DMs should not give magic items (including but not limited to weapons) when they feel that that is not the right thing for the table.
3. Players should, if having magic items is a major element of their fun, bring that up as early as possible in the process so the DM has the information to decide what is right for the table.
4. No one outside the table should cast aspersions, pressure, or criticize a DM who earnestly believes[1] that what they are doing is the right thing for the table. People at the table should use the normal standards of civility and respect and talk it out like adults with open OOC communications.

[1] Open and explicit bad faith (eg "I'm not giving him a magic item because he didn't buy me beer") excepted. But I believe we should assume good faith wherever it hasn't been disproved. Especially when hearing only one side of an issue.

Dr.Samurai

2023-06-07, 11:32 AM

All 4 points are good points that I agree with Phoenix.

#4 applies to many of the topics discussed on this forum as well.

RSP

2023-06-07, 11:46 AM

You are using "pressure" very loosely here. The reasons someone might feel compelled to do something, such as morality or something else, are not synonymous with browbeating, degrading, forcing, etc.

Compelling someone to do something, by definition, requires using force or pressure. Do you agree with this?

“Feeling compelled” means regardless of whether there’s actual compulsion, the feeling of force or pressure are apparent to the person who feels compelled. This is completely subjective to the person who is feeling this way, and doesn’t require actual compelling. Feelings are subjective to the person who feels them.

You stated:

When someone says "The DM felt compelled to include magic weapons", that means to me the DM felt it was the right choice to make.

This isn’t true.

It can be true that someone (the compelled person included) decides that the compelled choice(s) were subjectively the right end result.

However, you’re stating “compelled” equals “the right choice to make”. Whether or not someone feels pressure or force (from whatever source) to make a decision has no bearing on whether that decision is subjectively right or wrong (particularly since different people can conclude differently about the outcome).

I’d imagine if it’s a person doing the compelling, they’d probably say the choice to acquiesce to the pressure is “the right choice”; but that doesn’t mean it’s objectively the right choice.

“The DM feeling compelled to include magic weapons”, for instance from a Player that just whines about it incessantly, doesn’t mean the DM feels it’s the right choice to hand out the magic weapon.

It does mean the DM feels pressure to hand out the magic weapon.

Equating “feeling compelled” with “the right choice” is just wrong.

PhoenixPhyre

2023-06-07, 12:35 PM

All 4 points are good points that I agree with Phoenix.

#4 applies to many of the topics discussed on this forum as well.

Good. That means we (or at least I) can discard the semantic issue entirely.

Dr.Samurai

2023-06-07, 12:58 PM

Compelling someone to do something, by definition, requires using force or pressure. Do you agree with this?
When someone feels compelled to do something, it doesn't have to be due to outside "force" or "pressure". My entire point with this is that you think the phrase you are using is exclusive to "someone compelling someone else to do something" and it isn't. Hence why, in part, there was pushback.

People can feel compelled to do things through their own reasoning or understanding. That's what that phrase typically means when used as "I" or "so and so" "feel compelled".

“Feeling compelled” means regardless of whether there’s actual compulsion, the feeling of force or pressure are apparent to the person who feels compelled.
It can mean the person feels compelled by an outside force, which is what you are talking about. It's not really used often in this way though, as generally people say "they were coerced" or "they were forced" or "they were forced against their will" etc.

It can also mean the person feels a particular action is necessary, required, or the right thing to do, for reasons that do not require another person applying pressure to them. And generally when someone says "I feel compelled" this is what they mean.

Hence why I brought it up to you that your comment might seem overly harsh.

“The DM feeling compelled to include magic weapons”, for instance from a Player that just whines about it incessantly, doesn’t mean the DM feels it’s the right choice to hand out the magic weapon.

It does mean the DM feels pressure to hand out the magic weapon.

Equating “feeling compelled” with “the right choice” is just wrong.
The difference is that I'm explaining how, in this context, the phrase has more than one meaning, and that maybe people that recognize that are thinking you mean something you don't mean to say.

You, on the other hand, are just refusing to acknowledge how the language works in this case. As I've said before, don't let me stop you. But stop saying it's incorrect, when the links are there for everyone to read.

Good. That means we (or at least I) can discard the semantic issue entirely.
All good in the hood :smallcool:

Amechra

2023-06-07, 02:06 PM

I’ve always thought of Resistance as a way to effectively double a creature’s HPs. This is very commonly how it’s seen on Barbarian PCs based on threads I’ve seen on this site (and others): you’ll have threads discussing “effectively doubling the Barb’s PC’s HPs.”

Why is the view of monsters having Resistance such a negative thing to you, compared to such a different view of the mechanic when a PC has it?

I feel like you're missing the fact that monsters and PCs fill very different roles in the game.

A player character having effectively doubled HP is good, because it means that the party can extend their resources for longer without resting, meaning more fights per day and more fun. A monster with effectively doubled HP is frustrating, because it extends how long it takes to fight the monster and gives the sense that you're just wailing on a big bag o' HP (which is just tedious).

There's also the fact that spellcasters and non-spellcasters approach combat differently. Specifically:

Spellcasters have a variety of options, each of which targets a particular defense (AC or a save) and deals a different damage type. They're playing the JRPG game of figuring out which move works best for a particular situation.
Non-spellcasters, on the other hand have high-damage attacks that all target AC and deal the same type of damage (there are, what, 7 creatures total that care about the distinction between the BPS types?). Their combat variety is more focused on positioning (martial characters tend to be WAY more sensitive to range and cover than spellcasters) than it is on picking from a sack of offensive options.

Looking at it from this perspective, it's reasonably clear that both groups also interact with resistance differently. Putting resistance in front of a spellcaster just means that they pick a different golf club from their bag — heck, most of them get enough support options that putting Magic Resistance in front of them just means that they can shrug and play caddy for the rest of the party. Putting resistance in front of the martial characters, on the other hand, usually just means that you're telling them "you deal half damage this fight, and there's nothing you can really do about it" (and, unlike spellcasters, they usually are pretty bad at pivoting into a support role, which is honestly a big part of the frustration here). It also makes Elemental Adept make a little more sense — if you're going for a themed spellcaster who only blasts people with fire in fights (for example) and you're in a campaign with a bunch of fire-resistant enemies in it, grabbing the feat is basically like the Fighter getting a magic sword in a game with a bunch of slashing resistant enemies.

Hmm, this gives me an idea for a thread...

RSP

2023-06-07, 03:46 PM

Segev

2023-06-07, 05:04 PM

Personally, I would love to see more monsters that care about the difference between bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing, just to justify warriors picking weapons that have different types. I would also like seeing cases where this caring might be a vulnerability, rather than merely overcoming a resistance. Skeletons being vulnerable to bludgeoning, for instance, makes a warrior wielding a mace or a wizard wielding a quarterstaff feel either rewarded for the choice, or feel like maybe he better contributes by fighting than by spellcasting despite the lower attack stat.

RSP

2023-06-08, 07:54 AM

When someone feels compelled to do something, it doesn't have to be due to outside "force" or "pressure".

Correct: it could be internal force or pressure they feel. That is my point and what I’ve been saying all along: I don’t want DMs feeling forced or pressured to have to do anything. That is what “feels compelled” means (as you just finally agreed).

You’re trying to blame PhoenixPhire and I for using the word compelled, but it’s the appropriate use of the word: you can feel compelled from internal or external pressure. But it still requires feeling forced or pressured.

Dr.Samurai

2023-06-08, 09:33 AM

I feel like you're missing the fact that monsters and PCs fill very different roles in the game.

A player character having effectively doubled HP is good, because it means that the party can extend their resources for longer without resting, meaning more fights per day and more fun. A monster with effectively doubled HP is frustrating, because it extends how long it takes to fight the monster and gives the sense that you're just wailing on a big bag o' HP (which is just tedious).

There's also the fact that spellcasters and non-spellcasters approach combat differently. Specifically:

Spellcasters have a variety of options, each of which targets a particular defense (AC or a save) and deals a different damage type. They're playing the JRPG game of figuring out which move works best for a particular situation.
Non-spellcasters, on the other hand have high-damage attacks that all target AC and deal the same type of damage (there are, what, 7 creatures total that care about the distinction between the BPS types?). Their combat variety is more focused on positioning (martial characters tend to be WAY more sensitive to range and cover than spellcasters) than it is on picking from a sack of offensive options.

Looking at it from this perspective, it's reasonably clear that both groups also interact with resistance differently. Putting resistance in front of a spellcaster just means that they pick a different golf club from their bag — heck, most of them get enough support options that putting Magic Resistance in front of them just means that they can shrug and play caddy for the rest of the party. Putting resistance in front of the martial characters, on the other hand, usually just means that you're telling them "you deal half damage this fight, and there's nothing you can really do about it" (and, unlike spellcasters, they usually are pretty bad at pivoting into a support role, which is honestly a big part of the frustration here). It also makes Elemental Adept make a little more sense — if you're going for a themed spellcaster who only blasts people with fire in fights (for example) and you're in a campaign with a bunch of fire-resistant enemies in it, grabbing the feat is basically like the Fighter getting a magic sword in a game with a bunch of slashing resistant enemies.

Hmm, this gives me an idea for a thread...
I agree with all of this. The difference between players and monsters seems pretty clear, as well as between martials and casters.

It's not saying never have resistances be meaningful, but to say a DM should never feel the need to let players bypass, period, no ifs ands or buts is harsh.

Personally, I would love to see more monsters that care about the difference between bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing, just to justify warriors picking weapons that have different types. I would also like seeing cases where this caring might be a vulnerability, rather than merely overcoming a resistance. Skeletons being vulnerable to bludgeoning, for instance, makes a warrior wielding a mace or a wizard wielding a quarterstaff feel either rewarded for the choice, or feel like maybe he better contributes by fighting than by spellcasting despite the lower attack stat.
Totally agree.

Correct: it could be internal force or pressure they feel. That is my point and what I’ve been saying all along: I don’t want DMs feeling forced or pressured to have to do anything. That is what “feels compelled” means (as you just finally agreed).
I did not finally agree. I have provided links to the definition of this idiom. You choose to ignore it. That's all. You are using the phrase correctly, but I'm explaining that you can be perceived as overstating your case because the phrase can also be used to mean something else.

You’re trying to blame PhoenixPhire and I for using the word compelled, but it’s the appropriate use of the word: you can feel compelled from internal or external pressure. But it still requires feeling forced or pressured.
You can use the word compelled, but you should probably say something like "No one should ever compel the DM to...". Even that might be a bit weak because someone can make the case for something and the DM might find it compelling and make an adjustment.

Like... all the points that PhoenixPhyre laid out I agree with wholeheartedly. But point #4 actually leaves it open for someone to make a compelling case to the DM and the DM changing their minds and doing something else. The meaning of the word is such that a group can adhere perfectly to point #4 and say something like "I was running the game this way, and a couple of the players side-barred me and made a compelling case for a small adjustment in the way I run encounters. I thought about it and felt compelled to make the change."

As I have said numerous times now, nothing about that requires that the DM was forced or pressured into making the change. The phrase doesn't only have 1 meaning, and you are treating it as if it does. That's the point of disagreement here. And I reiterate, by all means, keep using it the way you want. But some people might think that you're saying a DM should never feel like handing out magic weapons to overcome resistance. I get you don't agree. No problemo.