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

[Nifft]

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

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

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

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

[Keltest]

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

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

[The Deej]

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

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

[Arkhios]

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

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

[Boci]

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

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

Yes.

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

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

[Keltest]

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

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

[Boci]

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

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

Google gives us some definitions

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

a conversation or debate about a specific topic

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

Of those, none require challenging the others position.

[Keltest]

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

Google gives us some definitions

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

a conversation or debate about a specific topic

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

Of those, none require challenging the others position.

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

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

[Boci]

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

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

[Keltest]

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

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

[Boci]

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

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

[Keltest]

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

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

[HPisBS]

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

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

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

Spoiler: 1

Show

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

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

Spoiler: plot

Show

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

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

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


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


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

Spoiler: such as:

Show

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

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

Spoiler: 2

Show

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

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

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

[Keltest]

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

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






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

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

[Arkhios]

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

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

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

[HPisBS]

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

Edit 2: cool

[Chaosmancer]

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

That is likely another reason the material was not included

[Keltest]

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

[HPisBS]

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

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

[Chaosmancer]

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

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

[Arkhios]

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

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

[Boci]

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

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

[Chaosmancer]

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

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

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

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

[Boci]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Segev]

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

[furby076]

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

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

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

[Nifft]

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

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

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