Does anyone else really hate the resistance system?

[Lupine]

I know that it serves a point, but the nonmagical resistances..... suck. I hate them so much.

If a creature is resistant to slashing, it should be resistant to slashing. I don't understand why a +1 sword should change that. In fact, I think it actually makes the game less fun to play.

Take for example, the werewolf. This is a creature which is... well, classic. In legend werewolves --Like most undead, or monstrous creatures-- were incredibly resistant to damage from just about... anything. Their big weakness is how they can be harmed by silver.
But in 5e, with the current system, any bloke wielding a +1 sword can just disregard this entirely. It makes the legendary vulnerability of the werewolf null, as any magic weapon can destroy with the same ability as someone who has a weapon specially made for the task. It just feels wrong.

And why? what gives a +1 one sword the ability to do this? According to the DMG (pg 141) "a combination of careful crafting and magical reinforcement."
Clearly, what makes a weapon magic must the "magical reinforcement," as any smith can produce a carefully crafted object. However, that doesn't sit well with me. Why should a magic sword overcome BPS damage, when is merely "magically reinforced," and an object of "extraordinary artisanship?"
Well, my fellow playgrounders, I don't think it should. I think that "extraordinary artisanship" should not make a sword automatically able to slash through a creature's scales, where a 'normal' sword cannot.
In my eyes, if a creature is resistant to BPS, it is resistant to BPS, regardless to how the damage is dealt, with exception to those rare creatures which allow silvered or adamantine weapons to deal damage. This would make WHAT gear you have when you are fighting creatures actually important. At the same time, I think that fewer creatures should have resistance to BPS across the board. Maybe one of them, but not all. Take a snapping turtle, for example. It's shell will make it much harder to deal damage with a slashing weapon, but a sledgehammer would kill it just fine. I would impose the following as a rule of thumb:
* Shelled or scaly creatures are resistant to slashing
* Fluid monsters (creatures with a mostly liquid form, or a highly adaptable form, like a shapeshifter) are resistant to bludgeoning
* Solid creatures are resistant to piercing.
NOTE: the difference between shelled and solid monsters is that shelled monsters have a "chewy" interior which is protected by the shell, whereas solid creatures are more constant and hard the whole way through. A turtle and a clay golem are respectively good examples.
NOTE: Creatures like a werewolf may still have across the board BPS, but those creatures should be few and far between. At the same time, exercise best judgement: if there is good reason for a creature to be resistant to a type of physical damage, then it should be.
Thoughts?

[Man_Over_Game]

Agreed. I would be fine with it if the resistances weren't the same across the board.

For example, make a Skeleton Mage resistant to nonmagical Piercing and Slashing, make the Lich resistant to Piercing and Slashing.

Immune to Necrotic? Also immune to Poison. Immune to Psychic? Also immune to Poison.

You could probably make all of the monsters categorized as "Physical Resistant", "Construct", "Undead", "Single-element aligned", and so forth and it'd probably all work just fine. The number of exceptions to the broad categories is frustrating to work with.

[Jamesps]

Technically this is an issue with the published monsters rather than the resistance system.

There's nothing in the base rules that says enemies have to be vulnerable to magical weapons. Barbarians are proof of that. It's just that almost all the entries in the monster manual say monsters with physical resistances can be overcome with magical weapons.

It's more of a tradition than a rule. If you create your own monsters you can ignore it.

[OldTrees1]

The existing resistances have their place. Resistance to non magical _____ serves to explain why the common rabble have not defeated the creature. However the 5E system is way broader than 5E uses it.

Where are all the Vulnerabilities?
Where are all the resistance to all (non magical and magical) PBS.
Where are all the resistance / immunity to non magical fire/cold/acid/etc.

Where are all the adv on saves vs conditions. We have enough immunities to poison, what about adv vs poison.


When you design a monster, there is so much potential for nuance.
Expanding on Man_Over_Game's Skeleton vs Lich example.
Skeletons have vulnerability to Bludgeoning. One of the few creatures with vulnerability. During design we should ask, should Liches have vulnerability to Magical Bludgeoning?

[Man_Over_Game]

The existing resistances have their place. Resistance to non magical _____ serves to explain why the common rabble have not defeated the creature. However the 5E system is way broader than 5E uses it.

Where are all the Vulnerabilities?
Where are all the resistance to all (non magical and magical) PBS.
Where are all the resistance / immunity to non magical fire/cold/acid/etc.

Where are all the adv on saves vs conditions. We have enough immunities to poison, what about adv vs poison.


When you design a monster, there is so much potential for nuance.
Expanding on Man_Over_Game's Skeleton vs Lich example.
Skeletons have vulnerability to Bludgeoning. One of the few creatures with vulnerability. During design we should ask, should Liches have vulnerability to Magical Bludgeoning?

That'd be pretty cool. You could even just make the "McGuffin" have a long history of slayers attempting to end this one Lich, and have it be nothing more than a +1 Maul.

[Tvtyrant]

I know that it serves a point, but the nonmagical resistances..... suck. I hate them so much.

If a creature is resistant to slashing, it should be resistant to slashing. I don't understand why a +1 sword should change that. In fact, I think it actually makes the game less fun to play.

Take for example, the werewolf. This is a creature which is... well, classic. In legend werewolves --Like most undead, or monstrous creatures-- were incredibly resistant to damage from just about... anything. Their big weakness is how they can be harmed by silver.
But in 5e, with the current system, any bloke wielding a +1 sword can just disregard this entirely. It makes the legendary vulnerability of the werewolf null, as any magic weapon can destroy with the same ability as someone who has a weapon specially made for the task. It just feels wrong.

And why? what gives a +1 one sword the ability to do this? According to the DMG (pg 141) "a combination of careful crafting and magical reinforcement."
Clearly, what makes a weapon magic must the "magical reinforcement," as any smith can produce a carefully crafted object. However, that doesn't sit well with me. Why should a magic sword overcome BPS damage, when is merely "magically reinforced," and an object of "extraordinary artisanship?"
Well, my fellow playgrounders, I don't think it should. I think that "extraordinary artisanship" should not make a sword automatically able to slash through a creature's scales, where a 'normal' sword cannot.
In my eyes, if a creature is resistant to BPS, it is resistant to BPS, regardless to how the damage is dealt, with exception to those rare creatures which allow silvered or adamantine weapons to deal damage. This would make WHAT gear you have when you are fighting creatures actually important. At the same time, I think that fewer creatures should have resistance to BPS across the board. Maybe one of them, but not all. Take a snapping turtle, for example. It's shell will make it much harder to deal damage with a slashing weapon, but a sledgehammer would kill it just fine. I would impose the following as a rule of thumb:
* Shelled or scaly creatures are resistant to slashing
* Fluid monsters (creatures with a mostly liquid form, or a highly adaptable form, like a shapeshifter) are resistant to bludgeoning
* Solid creatures are resistant to piercing.
NOTE: the difference between shelled and solid monsters is that shelled monsters have a "chewy" interior which is protected by the shell, whereas solid creatures are more constant and hard the whole way through. A turtle and a clay golem are respectively good examples.
NOTE: Creatures like a werewolf may still have across the board BPS, but those creatures should be few and far between. At the same time, exercise best judgement: if there is good reason for a creature to be resistant to a type of physical damage, then it should be.
Thoughts?

I think "resistant to mundane effects" is a very common fantasy trope and there's really no reason it needs to be pruned. What I will say is the binary magic/non-magic is bad. Silver, cold iron, etc. is closer to the tropes, and they should almost always have vulnerability to whatever they aren't resistant to. Fey should be badly damaged by cold iron, undead should be destroyed by silver, etc.

Some monsters I think magic weapon can work, if it has a carapace. Dragons, Tarrasque, etc. But these are for big natural disaster types that should be immune to common weapons.

[heavyfuel]

I think Resistance is a far better system than 3e's Damage Reduction since you no longer need to worry about 1 big instace of damage vs multiple smaller instances. Everyone is affected equally.

As such, I agree with Jamesps that the problem isn't the resistance system, but the designers choices of how to implement such system. Like most things in 5e, the ideas are good, but the executions are terrible.

[Pex]

Cynical response.

While warriors are already reliant on a magic weapon to do anything against these creatures, now they'll need a swiss-army knife of weapon types to be able to do anything. Combat becomes more about the gear you have instead of your class. Meanwhile spellcasters are not affected at all and continue to cast their spells against these creatures as they have been. Sure there exist monsters that have resistances and immunities to various spell effects, but spellcasters have already been dealing with such things. They get to attack with other spells in their arsenal. At worse they can run away and come back the next day with new spells prepared except perhaps Sorcerers, but UA does allow Sorcerers to change one spell known so they aren't totally cut off from doing anything about the situation. Warriors have to go on a quest to get a specific item which of course is totally DM dependent never guaranteed.

[MaxWilson]

I know that it serves a point, but the nonmagical resistances..... suck. I hate them so much.

If a creature is resistant to slashing, it should be resistant to slashing. I don't understand why a +1 sword should change that. In fact, I think it actually makes the game less fun to play.

Take for example, the werewolf. This is a creature which is... well, classic. In legend werewolves --Like most undead, or monstrous creatures-- were incredibly resistant to damage from just about... anything. Their big weakness is how they can be harmed by silver.
But in 5e, with the current system, any bloke wielding a +1 sword can just disregard this entirely. It makes the legendary vulnerability of the werewolf null, as any magic weapon can destroy with the same ability as someone who has a weapon specially made for the task. It just feels wrong.

And why? what gives a +1 one sword the ability to do this? According to the DMG (pg 141) "a combination of careful crafting and magical reinforcement."
Clearly, what makes a weapon magic must the "magical reinforcement," as any smith can produce a carefully crafted object. However, that doesn't sit well with me. Why should a magic sword overcome BPS damage, when is merely "magically reinforced," and an object of "extraordinary artisanship?"
Well, my fellow playgrounders, I don't think it should. I think that "extraordinary artisanship" should not make a sword automatically able to slash through a creature's scales, where a 'normal' sword cannot.
In my eyes, if a creature is resistant to BPS, it is resistant to BPS, regardless to how the damage is dealt, with exception to those rare creatures which allow silvered or adamantine weapons to deal damage. This would make WHAT gear you have when you are fighting creatures actually important. At the same time, I think that fewer creatures should have resistance to BPS across the board. Maybe one of them, but not all. Take a snapping turtle, for example. It's shell will make it much harder to deal damage with a slashing weapon, but a sledgehammer would kill it just fine. I would impose the following as a rule of thumb:
* Shelled or scaly creatures are resistant to slashing
* Fluid monsters (creatures with a mostly liquid form, or a highly adaptable form, like a shapeshifter) are resistant to bludgeoning
* Solid creatures are resistant to piercing.
NOTE: the difference between shelled and solid monsters is that shelled monsters have a "chewy" interior which is protected by the shell, whereas solid creatures are more constant and hard the whole way through. A turtle and a clay golem are respectively good examples.
NOTE: Creatures like a werewolf may still have across the board BPS, but those creatures should be few and far between. At the same time, exercise best judgement: if there is good reason for a creature to be resistant to a type of physical damage, then it should be.
Thoughts?

I dislike the resistance system in multiple ways.

From a rules point of view, it's too binary, so the monsters wind up feeling the same. I don't mind it if air elementals and demons are both resistant to normal weapons to some extent, but I would like it if air elementals and swarms of bugs took only 1/10 damage (minimum of 1 point) from weapon attacks whereas demons took 50% damage or something, instead of resistance always being exactly 50%.

From a monster design point of view, too few monsters take advantage of vulnerabilities (fey creatures should take double or triple damage from cold iron, and swarms of bugs could take double or triple damage from AoEs), bludgeoning/piercing/slashing weapon resistance is too often grouped together as one thing, and it is too common for magical weapons to bypass resistance. I wish more monsters were designed like Flameskulls, which are resistance to piercing damage, full stop, which is really interesting because they are also flying monsters, and arrows are piercing damage. Flameskulls therefore reward you for using your head and carrying a sling so you can switch damage types (bludgeoning) and kill them quicker, instead of just doing the same thing you do to kill every other monster (shoot arrows at it).

I would love it if, for example, a Fighter fighting a stone golem actually had a reason to switch from his trusty Greatsword +1 to an adamantine sledgehammer.

TL;DR 5E resistances are too simplistic and only a few monsters use them in an interesting way. I wish the rules allowed more complexity, and I wish monsters resistances were more often designed with the goal of creating meaningful decisions for a player and rewarding foresight and intelligent play.

================================================== ==================

Technically this is an issue with the published monsters rather than the resistance system.

There's nothing in the base rules that says enemies have to be vulnerable to magical weapons. Barbarians are proof of that. It's just that almost all the entries in the monster manual say monsters with physical resistances can be overcome with magical weapons.

It's more of a tradition than a rule. If you create your own monsters you can ignore it.

Yes, technically you can make a monster which takes only 1 point of damage from a non-AoE attack, or a monster which is immune to all spells under 7th level and to weapons that don't have at least a +2 enchantment but dies instantly when exposed to sunlight, but it feels un-idiomatic for 5E because MM/Volo's/Mordenkainen's monsters aren't built that way. Too much un-idiomatic stuff leaves you wondering if you should be running a different game system, though of course there's no bright line telling you how much is too much.

================================================== ==================

Cynical response.

While warriors are already reliant on a magic weapon to do anything against these creatures, now they'll need a swiss-army knife of weapon types to be able to do anything. Combat becomes more about the gear you have instead of your class. Meanwhile spellcasters are not affected at all and continue to cast their spells against these creatures as they have been. Sure there exist monsters that have resistances and immunities to various spell effects, but spellcasters have already been dealing with such things. They get to attack with other spells in their arsenal. At worse they can run away and come back the next day with new spells prepared except perhaps Sorcerers, but UA does allow Sorcerers to change one spell known so they aren't totally cut off from doing anything about the situation. Warriors have to go on a quest to get a specific item which of course is totally DM dependent never guaranteed.

This point in bold is one reason I wish MM monsters made better use of vulnerabilities. If Stone Golems were vulnerable to magical bludgeoning damage, for example, it would reward the fighting for bringing his adamantine sledgehammer, instead of penalizing him for not being a wizard. (I'd actually like golems to be more like AD&D golems, virtually immune to almost all magic and correspondingly rare and frightening to wizards.)

I'd like it if fighters and wizard both had to put on their thinking caps when faced with a new type of monster.

[Demonslayer666]

Maybe this stems from magic items being optional.

[jmartkdr]

Cynical response.

While warriors are already reliant on a magic weapon to do anything against these creatures, now they'll need a swiss-army knife of weapon types to be able to do anything. Combat becomes more about the gear you have instead of your class. Meanwhile spellcasters are not affected at all and continue to cast their spells against these creatures as they have been. Sure there exist monsters that have resistances and immunities to various spell effects, but spellcasters have already been dealing with such things. They get to attack with other spells in their arsenal. At worse they can run away and come back the next day with new spells prepared except perhaps Sorcerers, but UA does allow Sorcerers to change one spell known so they aren't totally cut off from doing anything about the situation. Warriors have to go on a quest to get a specific item which of course is totally DM dependent never guaranteed.

I actually think this is the real reason they don't use resistances to B, P, or S very often - they don't want to lock you into looking like the Pathfinder character art, since that's not the feel of all games.

Magical being binary is a bit of an issue, but I still like it better than a minimum of +X.

[No brains]

I'm more of the opposite camp that werewolves are dumb and magic weapons are fine. Half-man! Half-dog! All immune to weapons? Both men and dogs are very vulnerable to weapons. I can sort of accept it when turning into a dog is a side affect of a broader magical deal with something else resistant to weapons that are both non-magical and non-silvered, like a devil. As it stands, it's just glory to the fluffy tantrum.

Now a +1 sword, or even the humble moon-touched sword, is something that has been specifically treated in order to make it a better sword. Even 50gp is several weeks of work and several more weeks of earnings expended specifically to make a weapon better at what it does. I can't say if the DM's interpretation of the process to make the weapon is logical, but it makes sense from a story perspective.

If you really care about why a +1 sword can cut what a regular sword can't, I can make a bad Star Trek analogy with magnets. Magical resistance repels weapons like a magnetic field. A +1 weapon is like a weapon with a reverse charge that gets attracted into the field, letting the weapon dig deeper. Whatever the weapon does, B/S/P, is immaterial.

Also consider the DMG's creature design tips when considering resistance/vulnerability/immunity. Creatures with broad resistances have half the hitpoints of creatures that don't. In theory, they are 'vulnerable' to what they don't resist!

Beware the 'physics standpoint' of broadly dealing out damage resitances. If you do this, then everyone's going to walk around with hammers. It stunts character expression and creates tedium when selecting equipment. Not to mention, while a man in armor is 'resistant' or 'immune' to slashing damage from a longsword, historically experienced fighters have found ways to deliver damage around that by changing their grip on the sword and stabbing with the point or smashing with the pommel. Pollaxes had hammer heads and points. This was so tedious that people in pre-D&D history looked for a workaround.

P.S. Rakshasha's resistances and vulnerabilities are objectively wacko. Blame that episode of Kolchak the Night Stalker.

[Man_Over_Game]

Just have resistances/weaknesses that are both relevant to everyone and manageable by everyone.

Making a monster resistant to all nonmagical physical damage? That's a problem. Making them resistant to all nonmagical physical damage but one? That's fine.

Making a monster resistant to Fire/Cold/Lightning damage? That's a problem. Making them resistant to Cold/Necrotic/Psychic damage is fine.

Just enough to say "This kind of play is bad, but this one is not" for every single type of player would work just fine. The problem comes in when certain characters are only capable of dealing very specific types of damage (like how Bards mostly deal Psychic), and so that needs to be accounted for.

Having resistance to physical damage wouldn't be as much of a problem, if they weren't the only damage types most martials were able to do.


Really, it just boils down to game design common sense. Never have anything be a simple "Yes/No" but modify the cost/value to be "Expensive/Efficient". Do you use your magical spear against the slime even though it has resistance , or do you pull out a basic maul to work around its resistance to Piercing Damage? These Fire Imps are resistant to Fire, but none of my other spells have as much AoE. You can't have that decision-making process if the enemy has a blanket "He is resistant to all damage you do" clause.

[N810]

Mix things up once and a while a throw in a custom creature that is resistant to magic and magical weapons, but not mundane weapons.

[Amnestic]

Mix things up once and a while a throw in a custom creature that is resistant to magic and magical weapons, but not mundane weapons.

I don't know where they were sourced from or if they were made it into newer editions but Baldur's Gate 2 had 'Magic Golems' who were immune to magical weapons but not mundane weapons. They did telepgraph this when they show up by having chests or enemies with a bunch of mundane weapons nearby so you wouldn't get stuck.

I wish the vulnerability/resistance system had a 'half measure' in between so they could be more widespread. Vulnerability being 2x damage means it's extremely potent to hit so it can't be widespread. From a quick google 11(!) monsters in the core MM have a Vulnerability. If there were an option for 1.5x instead (and 0.75x for minor resistance) you might see more interesting combinations.

[KorvinStarmast]

I know that it serves a point, but the nonmagical resistances..... suck. I hate them so much.

If a creature is resistant to slashing, it should be resistant to slashing. I don't understand why a +1 sword should change that. In fact, I think it actually makes the game less fun to play.

For what it's worth, and to piggyback off of tvtyrant's answer, it replicates something in the fiction froim which this genre of games arose.
The most easily recalled example is that Sting could cut through Shelob's web. (Book, not movie). Regular sword bounced off of it.

And it need not even be a +1 sword. It's that the sword is magical that makes is special.

Also, doing it this way is streamlined, and less fiddly. That was an explicit aim of 5e rules. (They achieved mixed success with that, however).

[5eNeedsDarksun]

I generally like the resistance system in the sense that all characters can usually do something useful in an encounter, and have to adjust tactics where possible to do something optimal. The broad use of across the board BSP resistance on monsters however does exactly the opposite; melee/missile characters either have a magic weapon, in which case they fight exactly the same way as every other encounter, or they don't have a magic weapon, in which case they fight exactly the same way as every other encounter. Too bad there aren't more monsters that mix it up a bit to encourage a bit more interesting variation in fighting/ weapons/ tactics.

[Man_Over_Game]

I generally like the resistance system in the sense that all characters can usually do something useful in an encounter, and have to adjust tactics where possible to do something optimal. The broad use of across the board BSP resistance on monsters however does exactly the opposite; melee/missile characters either have a magic weapon, in which case they fight exactly the same way as every other encounter, or they don't have a magic weapon, in which case they fight exactly the same way as every other encounter. Too bad there aren't more monsters that mix it up a bit to encourage a bit more interesting variation in fighting/ weapons/ tactics.

After thinking about it, it almost seems better to have resistances to specific types of attacks on the Melee/Range scale, instead. Any Archer can pull out a dagger, and even a Barbarian can throw an Improvised Weapon. Casters often have melee-range options, and those that don't can still generally provide support to their team (what's a Barbarian going to provide as a support?).

It's not like any Barbarian or Fighter just has to think really hard to start dealing magic damage.

[deljzc]

It was funny that in a recent encounter with our beginner party, the Paladin had more success punching a Skeleton (with his 18 strength) than he did using his long sword....

It is a bit of an odd system. As discussed something seems "off" with the math behind it. Sometimes vulnerability and resistance might be too far apart. And immunities could be enhanced for some creatures.

I'd have to really dig into the math especially since all "modifiers" are applied BEFORE the double or halving of damage. I think there is a problem there. Just can't put my finger on it without a lot more research.

[Rynjin]

I think the bigger issue with resistance is how simplified it is from previous editions. You take full damage, half damage, or no damage (lumping Immunity) in 5e, there's no in-between.

Having a flat number taken off each attack also sold the fantasy a bit better. Dragons were all but immune to random scrubs attacking them, because they removed 10-20 damage from every non-magical attack directed at them. If they take half damage instead, you NEVER hit the "take zero damage" threshold, so an army of scrubs could whittle a dragon down over time (theoretically).

[Tvtyrant]

I think the bigger issue with resistance is how simplified it is from previous editions. You take full damage, half damage, or no damage (lumping Immunity) in 5e, there's no in-between.

Having a flat number taken off each attack also sold the fantasy a bit better. Dragons were all but immune to random scrubs attacking them, because they removed 10-20 damage from every non-magical attack directed at them. If they take half damage instead, you NEVER hit the "take zero damage" threshold, so an army of scrubs could whittle a dragon down over time (theoretically).

I make dragons immune to none-magical if I want them to crush armies. Smaug basically was, he's the Ur example. Otherwise the dragon just burns all the fields and avoids armies until everyone flees or capitulates.

[MaxWilson]

I think the bigger issue with resistance is how simplified it is from previous editions. You take full damage, half damage, or no damage (lumping Immunity) in 5e, there's no in-between.

Having a flat number taken off each attack also sold the fantasy a bit better. Dragons were all but immune to random scrubs attacking them, because they removed 10-20 damage from every non-magical attack directed at them. If they take half damage instead, you NEVER hit the "take zero damage" threshold, so an army of scrubs could whittle a dragon down over time (theoretically).

Tangent:

To be fair, between Frightening Presence, good AC, high mobility, stealth, and 5E's system of short rest/long rest healing, 5E dragons (RAW) are relatively good at taking down small armies of scrubs (say 5000 troops or less) in a series of hit-and-run raids over the course of several days. They're only bad at the stereotypical dragon fantasy of destroying armies in open combat... which, yes, can be frustrating.

My solution is to make all of my Adult/Ancient dragons Dragon Sorcerers (usually between level 3-10, sometimes up to 19), and some Young dragons too. That gives them enough edge to smash an army of 5000 outright, in less than an hour instead of a week.

[DeadMech]

I don't hate the resistance system... I reserve that for the skill system and lack of save progression.

It's just not very interesting and poorly utilized mostly. I preferred DR since that would come in a wide range of possibilities and actually let monsters no sell attacks from scrubs or minor environmental hazard damage. You know... making small elite groups of adventurers and heroes actually necessary for a setting.

Vulnerability is underutilized and may as well be treated as not existing. BPS is too often paired together for a game where magic weapons are "optional", and the entire lot of damage types are resisted at entirely unbalanced rates compared against one another leaving over reliance on poison or fire very detrimental.

[Lunali]

The part that really bugs me about the resistance system itself is the fact that it's applied before vulnerability, meaning if the damage is odd and both apply, the damage is reduced by one.

As for other concerns, I like to adjust some monsters slightly to make damage type matter in a logical way, which isn't a secret from the players.

[Misterwhisper]

My issue is that is just straight 50%, for everyone.

Not all resistances should be the same.

I understand why they did it, but it makes critters to basic.

[greenstone]

…so an army of scrubs could whittle a dragon down over time (theoretically).

I believe that is explicitly one of the design goals of 5E.

I get the pain of this issue, especially in a Curse of Strahd game I play, where our 5th level party has no magical weapons. As a zealot barb, my character has exactly one way to do full damage, the divine strikes, and I can only do it while raging (which is 3 times a week, given the "gritty" rest variant).

What have we fought the most of in Barovia? Undead, hags, and werewolves.

[MrStabby]

This point in bold is one reason I wish MM monsters made better use of vulnerabilities. If Stone Golems were vulnerable to magical bludgeoning damage, for example, it would reward the fighting for bringing his adamantine sledgehammer, instead of penalizing him for not being a wizard. (I'd actually like golems to be more like AD&D golems, virtually immune to almost all magic and correspondingly rare and frightening to wizards.)

I think vulnerability is a mechanic that screws with balance a lot. The easier it is to switch damage type the more you gain from it. Fighters and their ilk often shoehorn themselves into a particular weapon through feats like pole arm mastery; switching to a bludgeoning weapon will basically cost them a feat. A caster on the other hand that finds a vulnerability can exploit it just by casting a different spell and they wil typically be able to cover more damage types than a fighter will. Even restricting damage vulernabilities to BPS is still exploitable by casters through spells like polymorph, conjure animals, maelstrom etc..

I could get behind the golem magic immunity thing if there was abit of work done on the class spell lists to ensure that characters at least had access to some spells that could impact them/the fight. Spells like force cage, polymorph, conjure minion spells and similar give players something to do and a way to contribute, even if it is a lot narrower. Then when I think of the cleric spell list I see an issue - you get animate dead and planar binding I guess but there are some pretty significant costs to these - either in RP terms or financial. Magic immune enemies force the cleric into a healbot/buffbot type character that I feel this edition (rightly) tried to not force upon the player.

[Christew]

I wish the vulnerability/resistance system had a 'half measure' in between so they could be more widespread. Vulnerability being 2x damage means it's extremely potent to hit so it can't be widespread. From a quick google 11(!) monsters in the core MM have a Vulnerability. If there were an option for 1.5x instead (and 0.75x for minor resistance) you might see more interesting combinations.

I'd have to really dig into the math especially since all "modifiers" are applied BEFORE the double or halving of damage. I think there is a problem there. Just can't put my finger on it without a lot more research.

Some interesting ideas here. Perhaps modified vs unmodified resistance could be said half-step.
No Resistance: Full damage
Partial Resistance: Half base damage and then add modifiers
Full Resistance: Add modifiers to base damage and then half total

Would require more math than I feel like doing at the moment to really judge, but seems like it would differentiate things without being game breaking or too fiddly.

[Spore]

Take for example, the werewolf. Their big weakness is how they can be harmed by silver.
But in 5e, with the current system, any bloke wielding a +1 sword can just disregard this entirely.

I believe that is explicitly one of the design goals of 5E.

The problem is part balancing-wise, part how most people play 5e. Feats used to be a side-rule, something meant to differentiate some heroes from the standard Tom, **** or Harry going adventuring. Either ignored entirely, or given once or twice to a character to accentuate their strength. Drizzt would have Two-Weapon Fighting, Eric, the Fighter would have Magic Initiate (Cleric) to show his piety without leaving his class (multiclassing again is a side thing), but Conan would not pick feats. Or he would, but remove his rogue levels.

Now, I strongly get the Curse of Strahd "problem", my issue as DM with my group is actually different.

Spoiler: CoS players, turn away now!

Show

My paladin has a magical rapier, our druid has a magical bow. These items are so strong that they warp their playstyle around the items. Other players try to get creative, use their tools to dispatch problems, but druid and paladin are mostly on top with their "I hit it." which drains the fun out of the module for both of them.

I cannot take away their items without good reason, I thought about cursing them but it would be an incredibly **** move to do so. So yes, about 70% of these supernaturally scary encounters are suddenly a cake walk because the characters deal double the damage they are expected to. To make matters worse, if they have not earned their weapons, but found them by pure luck, they do not even feel satisfied from growing in power, because they could easily hand the blade off to Ismark and he would be just as good at monsterslaying if not better.

[Pex]

I believe that is explicitly one of the design goals of 5E.

I get the pain of this issue, especially in a Curse of Strahd game I play, where our 5th level party has no magical weapons. As a zealot barb, my character has exactly one way to do full damage, the divine strikes, and I can only do it while raging (which is 3 times a week, given the "gritty" rest variant).

What have we fought the most of in Barovia? Undead, hags, and werewolves.

How many long rests are you getting per game session? If it's no better than once every three game sessions that's why it feels like such a slog. It doesn't matter how long a rest is in game world time.