Who's gonna switch to 5.5, and why?

[Theodoxus]

Agreed but keep in mind source doesn't actually have to mean subclass. So for cleric you could choose the god/domain at level 1 which gives some benefits, but the subclass defines how you serve not who you serve. So the subclasses become something like
Templar - A martial focus with armor, weapons, divine strike, etc... whose role is to fight enemies of the god/domain, protect holy places, etc...
Thaumaturge - A magic focus whose role is to go out in the world and use the magic to spread the ideals of the god/domain
Inquisitor - A skill focus whose role is to keep the faithful "pure"

I'm currently working on remaking Cleric subclasses work this way. Though I used 'Priest' instead of Thaumaturge, and added 'Cleric' as a medium armor wearing 1/2 caster. Templar/Crusader being a 1/3 caster, but getting more martial abilities than the 5E cleric. Inquisitor being a light armor wearing 2/3 caster, with specialized weapons and paladin-esque auras. I'm also working on their opposite, the Friar, that is built more like a divine Bard, specializing in group/party support and specialized in the quarterstaff (taking blatant inspiration from the Dark Age of Camelot class).

But that changes the relevancy of the source. If how I serve my god defines me more that which god I serve, then templars of Corellon and Kord are more similar than a Templer and an Theurge of the same god. The narrative impact is there.

If that's actually a problem then it's one that already exists because gods have multiple domains. As an example Selune has Knowledge and Life as suggested domains, so the Knowledge cleric of Selune will be closer to the Knowledge cleric of Gond then to the Life cleric of Selune despite sharing the same god.

But those gods have an aspect in common, and since those clerics are devoted to that aspect of their respective god they are similar. With "Service" base subclass, all templars will be very alike, regardless of their gods domains.

Because templariness isn't particularly related to Corellon's or Kord's ethos, while Knowledge is for Selune and Gond. So there is a reason in the narrative and won't be true for any 2 gods, only for those whose ethos overlaps.

Unless, in universe, only some gods support specific subclasses. Or, more specifically, some domains support specific subclasses (since that seems to be ok in your worldview). So, you can be a Priest/Thaumaturge of Corellon or Mystra or any other god that has Arcane as part of their portfolio, but not a Templar/Crusader. Likewise, following a War domain precludes access to the Priest/Thaumaturge subclass. The quick and dirty conversion would be looking at current subclass armor and weapon restrictions. So, Tempest, Twilight, and War wouldn't have Priests. Forge, Life, and Nature wouldn't have any restrictions. The others wouldn't have Templars.

Rogue should be a Wizard subclass.

(I do think more 'hybrid' subclasses are generally pretty neat though - if Multiclassing weren't a thing I'm sure we'd see more of them)

+1 (I'd love to see an alternate Earth where multiclassing was never thought up and see how the game would be different (better? worse? not sure - but definitely different.)

And for that matter, once the monk gets ki (at level 2) then why isn't that when they get their sub class as druid and wizard do? All said and done, it all kind of worked out, but the front loading on some classes really stands out.

Same for Paladin and Ranger getting spells at 2nd level, but subclass at 3rd. Unless you don't think that spells are as defining for those classes as Ki is for Monk... which is fair, but not something I agree with.

I hear this and raise you "Clerics should be a Paladin subclass".

Paladin should just be another name for Templar/Crusader ;)

[Amechra]

Getting? I want to short circuit this already silly "discussion" by misty stepping to the conclusion so we can skip 10 pages of "this class shouldn't exist" in a "are you going to switch to 5.5e" thread.

Why would you want to leave a conversation that's clearly far more interesting?

+1 (I'd love to see an alternate Earth where multiclassing was never thought up and see how the game would be different (better? worse? not sure - but definitely different.)

I'd be intrigued to see the alternate timeline where multiclassing was based on multiclassing (pre-3e's equivalent to gestalt) and not dual-classing. Or where 5e embraced 4e-style multiclassing (read: it's a feat that gives you goodies from a particular class) — I know that Everyday Heroes (the 5e version of d20 Modern) goes that route, but that game also goes super hard on feats, so...

[2D8HP]

Alright, while probably the answer is “wait for the new PHB to be published and see”, to all y’all who somehow know what’s coming up: what does D&D2024 have that I’d like?

Mostly I play (Champion) Fighters, and (Swashbuckler) Rogues (when I think I can stand the complexity of playing one).

The only details I remember about this (partially) new edition is that for some reason “races” is being renamed “species”, and (annoying) everyone gets a Feat at first level.

What I’d like are rules for simpler to play Paladins and Rangers (‘cause thematically I like those classes), and (if I can dream) rules that spellcasters eventually go insane, their brains get eaten by demons, or something else badass that’s thematically sword & sorcery.

Anything in the new rules I’ll like?

Getting? I want to short circuit this already silly "discussion" by misty stepping to the conclusion so we can skip 10 pages of "this class shouldn't exist" in a "are you going to switch to 5.5e" thread.

@Mastikator,

D&D really only needs one “class”: Fighter.

The rest (especially Wizard) can be in the Monster Manual

[OldTrees1]

I'd be intrigued to see the alternate timeline where multiclassing was based on multiclassing (pre-3e's equivalent to gestalt) and not dual-classing.

We can see a bit of that alternate timeline depending on which playgroup you look at. AD&D Multiclassing (You have 2-3 classes and separate xp tracks for when each class levels up) and AD&D Dualclassing (Stop leveling in class A and switch to leveling in class B) are modeled by the level by level multiclassing of 3E/5E, depending on how the player multiclasses.

In my experience with the playgroups I have been in, "dipping" is non-existent. Instead we saw the ratio multiclassing simplified from multiple xp tracks to a single xp track but keeping the multiclassing ratio. In my current campaign one of the PCs is something like a Crusader/Totemist/Psion that could have been using AD&D Multiclassing with separate xp tracks.

I expect that alternate timeline would have official ratios of 1:1, 1:1:1, and 1:2. There would be common houserules for 1:1:2 and 1:2:2 ratios as well. The forums would discuss imbalance between single class having higher level features vs multiclass having more levels. Unfortunately playable species might be keep very limited, until they had the idea to have monster classes as one of the classes in the ratio. Oh, and 5E would not have sharp tier break points because sudden power spikes (Extra Attack at 5th) don't work as well if half the party won't get them.

[Psyren]

Yes, I'm certainly talking about changes I'm not about to use and don't care about and not the issue that's been around since 5e was published.

I mean, I'm not actually trying to convince you, that's a lost cause I'm pointing out the other side of the change you mentioned more generally. Paladins and Rangers get spellcasting at level 1 now, so the Fighting Style being level 2 is even more fine than it was before. (Honestly, both classes were pretty lame at level 1 in 2014, probably to keep them from stepping on Fighter's toes.

Stupid explanation to try to cover for the idiotic decision to move warlock's patron to level 3. It doesn't work for most of warlock concepts.

Sure it does. It even solves some prior issues, such as why every single patron regardless of flavor gives Warlocks the exact same laser beam. (Answer - they actually don't.)

Thus the boon at level 3. The patron offers a nicer gift once the warlock has demonstrated what you mention.

The only powers that have to come from the Patron are the subclass features. Everything else including the pact boons are up in the air - they can be from the Patron too, or one of their lesser servants, or they can be the result of Warlock's other deals and general secret-mongering.

While mechanically that is appealing, narratively the Warlock and Cleric, in particular, make far better sense to get that at level 1, as does the 'inborn magic' of the sorcerer class. (Which 5e could have done without). And for that matter, once the monk gets ki (at level 2) then why isn't that when they get their sub class as druid and wizard do? All said and done, it all kind of worked out, but the front loading on some classes really stands out.

I think the narrative is fine. 1st and 2nd-level Clerics are acolytes that haven't earned a Domain yet; 1st and 2nd-level Warlocks aren eophytes subsisting on lesser pacts; 1st and 2nd-level Sorcerers haven't unlocked the true secret of their heritage. And in all three cases there is storytelling potential that didn't exist before - the character who thinks their power source is going to be X when it actually turns out to be Y, where Y could even be a power they find shocking or abhorrent.

Alright, while probably the answer is “wait for the new PHB to be published and see”, to all y’all who somehow know what’s coming up: what does D&D2024 have that I’d like?

Mostly I play (Champion) Fighters, and (Swashbuckler) Rogues (when I think I can stand the complexity of playing one).

The only details I remember about this (partially) new edition is that for some reason “races” is being renamed “species”, and (annoying) everyone gets a Feat at first level.

What I’d like are rules for simpler to play Paladins and Rangers (‘cause thematically I like those classes), and (if I can dream) rules that spellcasters eventually go insane, their brains get eaten by demons, or something else badass that’s thematically sword & sorcery.

Anything in the new rules I’ll like?

Champion and Swashbuckler got a lot of mechanical buffs vs 2014 (primarily from the base class chassis) but it's hard for me to say exactly what you'll like given this list. In particular, Champion has some solid out of combat utility now from Tactical Mind, Remarkable Athlete actually makes them a remarkable athlete, Heroic Warrior and Studied Attacks combo well with their critical enhancements, Tactical Shift gives them fantastic mobility, and the buffs to Second Wind and Indomitable give them much stronger defenses.

[Waazraath]

I personally don't get the "switching" idea, incorporate what you like and disregard what you don't, same as any splatbook.

I don't really get 'same as any splatbook' - a new (half) edition seems more problematic to me to use partly. Maybe it's possible to incorporate new (sub)classes, but either they replace something in use, or you'll have two (sub)classes with the same name. And these new features are balanced with the rest of 5.5 in mind, not with 5e, which might cause balance issues.

But if it's possible, it's cool. If there are a few things that are definitely improvements that I can borrow for my 5e games and the rest of the group agrees, I might even get the PHB. Comparing it to the switch from 3 to 3.5, we did a total switch there, all buying new books and only playing 3.5. I don't see my current group make the same decision now though.

The 3e Binder was peak Warlock design and until we get that back, we won't have a great Warlock. As much as I loved the 4e Warlock, even that paled in comparison. This half-caster stuff could work... But right now it's got no direction.

Yes, that was great. Damn shame they didn't bother to make a class based on that mechanic (and the ToB mechanic, and psionics, and 3e Warlock/dragonfire adept mechanics) in 5e, cause the framework really allows it. And it would have gotten a helluvalot more interesting options than just another "uses spells as mechanic" class. Oh well, that's more for the 'what would you really like in 6e if you could change one thing' thread.

One other thing I consider: the 'sack over 1000 folks just before X-mas and giving the CEO a 9 milion bonus' which Hasbro did is pretty disgusting in my view and yet another reason for rather not spending money on D&D (or MtG for that matter). That, and having an edition that works fine, having years and years of campaign material for 5e lying around, and playing other games instead which is just as much fun (different beast, but similar thematics: we started with Gloomhaven some time ago and that guarantees just as D&D years of fun for evenings in the weekends).

[KorvinStarmast]

One other thing I consider: the 'sack over 1000 folks just before X-mas and giving the CEO a 9 milion bonus' which Hasbro did is pretty disgusting in my view and yet another reason for rather not spending money on D&D (or MtG for that matter).

Well now that you put it that way, I think I'll add that as a reason not to. Problem is, plenty of game companies treat their employees like dirt.

[Atranen]

I think the narrative is fine. 1st and 2nd-level Clerics are acolytes that haven't earned a Domain yet; 1st and 2nd-level Warlocks aren eophytes subsisting on lesser pacts; 1st and 2nd-level Sorcerers haven't unlocked the true secret of their heritage. And in all three cases there is storytelling potential that didn't exist before - the character who thinks their power source is going to be X when it actually turns out to be Y, where Y could even be a power they find shocking or abhorrent.

What if I want my level 1 sorcerer to know the true secret of their heritage? Imagine a member of the Draketooth clan in the comic; they know from birth where their powers come from. Or what if I want my level 1 warlock to have sold their soul, mistakenly, on a whim, and spend the rest of their career dealing with the fallout? (See Eugene Greenhilt for a possible inspiration). In this case, it doesn't make sense for them to double down on their pact at 3.

You can still do these narratives with subclass at 3. But they fit less comfortably with the mechanics.

[Psyren]

What if I want my level 1 sorcerer to know the true secret of their heritage? Imagine a member of the Draketooth clan in the comic; they know from birth where their powers come from.

Yeah, but even if that's the case - knowing that you're descended from draconic sorcerers doesn't mean you immediately get the 13+Dex worth of armored scales though. It's not like draconic sorcerers come out of the womb covered in them.

[Atranen]

One other thing I consider: the 'sack over 1000 folks just before X-mas and giving the CEO a 9 milion bonus' which Hasbro did is pretty disgusting in my view and yet another reason for rather not spending money on D&D (or MtG for that matter). That, and having an edition that works fine, having years and years of campaign material for 5e lying around, and playing other games instead which is just as much fun (different beast, but similar thematics: we started with Gloomhaven some time ago and that guarantees just as D&D years of fun for evenings in the weekends).

Well now that you put it that way, I think I'll add that as a reason not to. Problem is, plenty of game companies treat their employees like dirt.

It's a rough industry. There are a lot of relatively independent people cobbling projects together in their garages and such, and I've been happy to support those rather than WotC.

[Kane0]

It's not like draconic sorcerers come out of the womb covered in them.

Maybe yours dont.

[Yakmala]

I play primarily in homebrew games but I also DM games for my FLGS that use the AL rules. So while my individual groups may decide to adopt anywhere from some to none of the new rules, or even consider switching systems entirely, if I wish to continue DM'ing for public games and conventions, I'll likely have to adopt the entirety of 5.5.

[Psyren]

On the layoffs, I will say that two of the more prominent laid off employees, Dan Dillon and Eytan Bernstein, have said they plan to keep supporting their colleagues still on the inside and that they're excited about what's to come in the new books.

Maybe yours dont.

Neither do WotC's apparently.

[Waazraath]

Well now that you put it that way, I think I'll add that as a reason not to. Problem is, plenty of game companies treat their employees like dirt.

It's a rough industry. There are a lot of relatively independent people cobbling projects together in their garages and such, and I've been happy to support those rather than WotC.

Yeah. More in general, in several cultural scenes (be it music or gaming) the downfall starts when so much money is made when the enthusiasts who made their living out of their hobby are bought by companies whose first and foremost interest is pleasing the shareholders and where the people in power have no love for the product. Often (though not always) better to switch to another independent product.

One more thing on the binders and why it might have been difficult to port it over to 5e: the 3.5 binder was for a large part based on / inspired by a real world book a few centuries old on sorcery and demonolgy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Le...mon#Ars_Goetia ) - that made it a bit more related to the occult than most D&D products (and even without that kind of stuff D&D has been accused in the past of leading to devil worship in the satanic panic of the 80's - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satanic_panic ). That might be a reason designers or publishers are less enthusisastic for this particular mechanics and flavor.

[Toofey]

I refuse to buy more books from Hasbro after they treated their workers so terribly. My books will continue to function for my game, and I would rather go to a non-Hasbro system than reward their abuse of their employees.

[Lord Ruby34]

Alright, while probably the answer is “wait for the new PHB to be published and see”, to all y’all who somehow know what’s coming up: what does D&D2024 have that I’d like?

Mostly I play (Champion) Fighters, and (Swashbuckler) Rogues (when I think I can stand the complexity of playing one).

The only details I remember about this (partially) new edition is that for some reason “races” is being renamed “species”, and (annoying) everyone gets a Feat at first level.

What I’d like are rules for simpler to play Paladins and Rangers (‘cause thematically I like those classes), and (if I can dream) rules that spellcasters eventually go insane, their brains get eaten by demons, or something else badass that’s thematically sword & sorcery.

Anything in the new rules I’ll like?



@Mastikator,

D&D really only needs one “class”: Fighter.

The rest (especially Wizard) can be in the Monster Manual

Not an answer to your question, but I bet you would really enjoy the Dungeon Crawl Classics rpg. It has pretty much everything you suggested in your post.

[Kane0]

Neither do WotC's apparently.

I'm willing to bet they skip to 3 or 5 'like everyone else' when they play/test.

[Psyren]

I'm willing to bet they skip to 3 or 5 'like everyone else' when they play/test.

If they did then there'd be no reason for them to change the level 1-2 experience. Clearly they're changing that because they play (or have play data from) those levels.

One more thing on the binders and why it might have been difficult to port it over to 5e: the 3.5 binder was for a large part based on / inspired by a real world book a few centuries old on sorcery and demonolgy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Le...mon#Ars_Goetia ) - that made it a bit more related to the occult than most D&D products (and even without that kind of stuff D&D has been accused in the past of leading to devil worship in the satanic panic of the 80's - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satanic_panic ). That might be a reason designers or publishers are less enthusisastic for this particular mechanics and flavor.

Eh, that didn't stop them from doing Vestige Pact warlocks back in 4e though. I think it's more that you can essentially fluff Binders using the existing pact magic framework just fine, using just about every pact except Celestial and Fiend.

[Zevox]

I see even less differences between 5th edition and the OneD&D update than there were between 3.0 and 3.5, and I refuse to call it any other than 5th edition even going forward, unless the devs start doing that as well.

Um, that is what the devs are doing. They stopped calling it "One D&D" a while ago and now refuse to give it any distinct name, and are just calling it the "2024 rulebooks" and saying it's still 5th edition.

[Arkhios]

Um, that is what the devs are doing. They stopped calling it "One D&D" a while ago and now refuse to give it any distinct name, and are just calling it the "2024 rulebooks" and saying it's still 5th edition.

Read again. I said Any other than 5th edition.

In other words, I refuse to call the edition a "5.5" or whatever, unless the devs call it that way. Is that better (note, english is only a tertiary language for me)?

On another note, this was the devs' intention from the start, so I seriously wonder why people insist calling it a half-edition upgrade or the next edition when it clearly was not intended as one. I don't care if that's what it seems to be. Offically it's still, for the time being, 5th edition, and that's what counts.

[Psyren]

I'll call it just about anything except 6e (It's not changing enough to be 6e imo.) One, 1DnD, 5.5e, 5R, and 2024 5e are all fine in my book.

[Arkhios]

I'll call it just about anything except 6e (It's not changing enough to be 6e imo.) One, 1DnD, 5.5e, 5R, and 2024 5e are all fine in my book.

5R is a new one for me. I could accept that, to be entirely honest.

But in all honesty, the game has changed quite a bit even before the debacle what was called OneD&D (I'm looking at you TCE's proficiency bonus based PC options) and even then people didn't make a distinction between 5th edition and some other version of 5th edition. The changes to be made to the base rulebooks are really quite small. A new subsystem such as bastions or weapon masteries could've been introduced in just about any supplement under 5th edition and it wouldn't have caused a fuss like this. But now that they're undergoing a series of fixes out in the open (as in, not behind closed doors) for the player's handbook and the rest, it's somehow different. I don't get it. I really don't.

[Psyren]

5R is a new one for me. I could accept that, to be entirely honest.

I've seen it used on the DnDBeyond forums; Revision or Remaster depending on the speaker.

But in all honesty, the game has changed quite a bit even before the debacle what was called OneD&D (I'm looking at you TCE's proficiency bonus based PC options) and even then people didn't make a distinction between 5th edition and some other version of 5th edition. The changes to be made to the base rulebooks are really quite small. A new subsystem such as bastions or weapon masteries could've been introduced in just about any supplement under 5th edition and it wouldn't have caused a fuss like this. But now that they're undergoing a series of fixes out in the open (as in, not behind closed doors) for the player's handbook and the rest, it's somehow different. I don't get it. I really don't.

Me neither. But I will say that WotC's abysmal PR hasn't exactly helped.

[Zuras]

If I ever play a 5.5 game it will be purely because the local play group I enjoy playing with switched.

[Waazraath]

Eh, that didn't stop them from doing Vestige Pact warlocks back in 4e though. I think it's more that you can essentially fluff Binders using the existing pact magic framework just fine, using just about every pact except Celestial and Fiend.

I skipped 4e, but I just checked wiki and isn't that 4e binder warlock without the seals and names from art goethica (and thus without all potential controversial stuff)?

[rlc]

i think the thing i least look forward to is all of the threads titled with some variation of “sell me on 2024’s version of 5e”

[KorvinStarmast]

i think the thing i least look forward to is all of the threads titled with some variation of “sell me on 2024’s version of 5e”

I dislike a lot of the changes for violating the KISS principle.
The new weapons features: too fiddly.
The burden on the DM for keeping track of vex/topple/ etc for all of the weapons that various MM creatures use is not value added. (Vex in paricular I find to be too admin intensive). f
The simple "all attacks are magical for a monk" starting at level six is KISS personified. what D&Done has changed that to is a step backwards. (Some of the other monk changes are OK, but also increase the fiddeliness, and some features of the barbarian come on line way too late.

TBH, I like what they are doing with the Moon Druid, so far as of UA 8. I think I like how they have the star, moon, land and sea circles in terms of thematics. I hate what they did to the conjure animals spell, though. (The conjure celestial and woodland beings and fey are likewise changes that I find to be value reduced. The Tasha's summons spells were a much better attempt at getting a grip on summoning.

The only QOL improvement that I can get behind solidly is that Paladin and Ranger get their spell casting feature at level 1. (Have criticized various paladin nerfs elsewhere, not gonna resurrect that rant).

Something that I liked, from a thematic standpoint, was breaking up the spells into Divine, Arcane, and Primal.
Problem, is, they kept the schools so KISS is badly violated.
I posted the school balance problem vis a vis Primal, Divine, and Arcane (all nine levels) a while back - it illustrates what a mess they have made out of the magic system, een with the best of intentions.

[One Tin Soldier]

The new weapons features: too fiddly.
The burden on the DM for keeping track of vex/topple/ etc for all of the weapons that various MM creatures use is not value added. (Vex in paricular I find to be too admin intensive).

Weapon Mastery is a class feature, not an inherent property of weapons, so NPC statblocks won’t use them unless they are specifically called out as doing so. That said, I do hope that more monsters get similar riders on their attacks. In particular I hope that push effects become much more common.

The simple "all attacks are magical for a monk" starting at level six is KISS personified. what D&Done has changed that to is a step backwards.

The concept of “resistant/immune to nonmagical physical damage” appears to be going away, or at least heavily reduced. Instead it looks like we’ll be getting (fewer?) monsters that are just resistant/immune to physical damage, but changing physical damage to magical damage types is going to be significantly more accessible.

TBH, I like what they are doing with the Moon Druid, so far as of UA 8. I think I like how they have the star, moon, land and sea circles in terms of thematics. I hate what they did to the conjure animals spell, though. (The conjure celestial and woodland beings and fey are likewise changes that I find to be value reduced. The Tasha's summons spells were a much better attempt at getting a grip on summoning.

That’s exactly why they had to change the Conjure spells. The Tasha’s Summon spells are going to be reprinted in the new PHB as the new standard for summons. But backwards compatibility requires that they print a spell worth the same name as every spell in the 2014 PHB, so they had to change the effect of all the problematic Conjure spells too. I think that the general concept of Final Fantasy style conjuring is the right compromise for those spells. Sure, the individual power balance needs to be adjusted for a few, but that’s not the point of the playtest.

[Zevox]

Read again. I said Any other than 5th edition.

In other words, I refuse to call the edition a "5.5" or whatever, unless the devs call it that way. Is that better (note, english is only a tertiary language for me)?

On another note, this was the devs' intention from the start, so I seriously wonder why people insist calling it a half-edition upgrade or the next edition when it clearly was not intended as one. I don't care if that's what it seems to be. Offically it's still, for the time being, 5th edition, and that's what counts.

I did misread what you meant there, fair.

On that last though, two reasons: one, they did start this with a different name for it, One D&D. It was a bad name and dropping it is a good idea, but it was a clear, differentiating name. And two, there should be a different name because these are different things - that's the whole point of releasing new core books - and there will be a need to differentiate between them just to understand which we're talking about in conversation. Yes, the new books are just revisions to 5e's rules, but that's what makes 5.5e a natural option given past D&D naming conventions include 3.5e, the clearest point of comparison for what they're doing here. Even if they didn't want to use that naming convention for some reason, some other name should have been chosen - 5e Revised if you just want to be as basic and straightforward as possible, for example.

Instead, because they refuse to do that and are only using the year they came out to differentiate them, which is clunky, you're going to get fan nicknames like 5.5e, or people continuing to use One D&D despite WotC having dropped it.

[Psyren]

The burden on the DM for keeping track of vex/topple/ etc for all of the weapons that various MM creatures use is not value added. (Vex in paricular I find to be too admin intensive).

I highly doubt every rando goblin and gnoll will get Weapon Mastery, so the DM won't need to track anything related to their weapons. They're warriors, not Fighters.

The simple "all attacks are magical for a monk" starting at level six is KISS personified. what D&Done has changed that to is a step backwards.

"Magic weapon/unarmed attacks do Force" is way more KISS than "sometimes your bludgeoning is resisted and sometimes it isn't, read every statblock that mentions bludgeoning resistance carefully, and repeat that process for piercing and slashing, but don't worry about spells they always count as magical, except when they're summoning something so not always."