D&D 5E 4/18/2013 D&D Next Q&A

[zoroaster100]

I was disappointed to see duergar and kuo-to described in recent Wondering Monster articles on the Wizards site as having various immunities such as to illusions. This seems to go counter to the design philosophy expressed above. I do think there is a place for immunities for creatures that seem illogical if they don't have it. For example, having undead be immune to poison, or constructs be immune to charm makes sense. But there is really no reason that duergar and kuo-toa need immunities. Those could just be turned into resistance and advantage on saves. The only reason to give them immunities is some form of sacred cow from older editions, but in Fourth Edition they didn't get immunities. If it was necessary for believability, fine, but I don't think those monsters need immunities.

 

[Li Shenron]

I'm a little curious about how they'll ensure that these things are actually used sparingly.

It's simply a matter of not making them recurring too frequently in monster manuals.

If 2-3% of the creatures in MM are immune to magic, that's a reasonable amount. The average DM who picks many creatures in the course of a campaign shall have no problem.

Too many, and the immunity tends to become a feature of the game (like 3e DR/magic) because avoiding the feature requires to look for monsters without it among the many which have it.

There is nothing however that the book can do for a DM who picks specific creatures and use them extensively. Should I decide to use only dragons, then I can't really complain "the monsters in this game are too hard!", I would be an idiotic DM.

If a DM wants to use only (or at least many many) golems, she should know what she's doing and make arrangements to the game if thought necessary, or just accept the results. Certainly the books should not give up totally valid monster concepts just on the ground that if you always use the same monster then the game doesn't work.

 

[Falling Icicle]

The article talks about immunity to non-magical weapons and immunity to spells as if they are equivalent. They're not. The former is quite easy to overcome. Practically every adventurer is going to come across at least a +1 weapon at some point, unless the campaign is extremely low magic. Immunity to spells, on the other hand, can't be overcome by any means. The wizard player is just screwed. A better comparison would be if a monster was immune to all weapons - period.

Either way, I hate immunities like this. If a creature is immune to non-magical weapons, or non-silver weapons, or whatever, it either irrelevant because the player happens to have the right weapon, or it makes the monster totally immune to that character, forcing him to sit out the fight. They talk about using creative means to defeat such creatures, but that isn't how it goes. What happens is that one or more of the players has to sit there bored and useless while the rest of the party kills it. If a creature is immune to weapons, the spellcasters kill it. If the creature is immune to magic, the weapon-users kill it.

They're right that these things should be used sparingly, but I don't think they're being sparing enough. I don't think any of the creatures in the monster manual should have such immunities by default. Instead, this should be an optional suggestion for customizing monsters. For example, I wouldn't give rakshasa immunity to almost all levels of spells by default, but in the customization sidebar, it could suggest that perhaps some unique and very powerful rakshasa are rumored to have that power. Then it's entirely up to the DM whether or not he wants to use it, and it's something that's special by its very nature when he does, not just something that all rakshasa, all golems, etc. have by default.

 

[Li Shenron]

Practically every adventurer is going to come across at least a +1 weapon at some point, unless the campaign is extremely low magic.

I really hope that next edition wants to get finally get rid of this kind of assumptions.

This is exactly the kind of assumptions that made 3e so rigid against playstyles that differ from the edition's chosen one.

If 5e wants to be inclusive, they really should kill this type of assumptions, all of them or at least as many as possible. It doesn't matter whether the assumption of +1 weapons is much milder than 3e assumption of +N every M levels, they have the same consequence.

We should already have had some ideas on how many people do not want to have even +1 weapons in their game, just by reading these forums everyday.

They talk about using creative means to defeat such creatures, but that isn't how it goes. What happens is that one or more of the players has to sit there bored and useless while the rest of the party kills it. If a creature is immune to weapons, the spellcasters kill it. If the creature is immune to magic, the weapon-users kill it.

This is how it goes exactly when players don't want to be creative, which is a totally legitimate playstyle itself because creativity requires some thinking effort. The beer & pretzel gamestyle is supposed to be relaxing, and many groups want to just bash things without having to think too much, and that's not badwrongfun.

But then there are others who prefer a more engaging gamestyle. That's what you get exactly when your most obvious tools (the fighter's weapon, the wizard's spells) stop working as usual, not necessarily stop working at all of course.

The game needs to provide unexpected challenges to be engaging for this gamestyle, and immunities are one of the many possibility. There are anyway plenty of other monsters which are instead meeting the expectations and just need to be bashed to death. A good DM learns to use the monsters more appropriate for her group's favourite playstyle.

Instead, this should be an optional suggestion for customizing monsters.

Would work for me. I like the trend set by the playtest's bestiary of having a sidebar for optional additions to many creatures. If this works well enough for you when you want to ignore those troublesome features, then it works well enough for me when I want to use them!

I actually think this could be the best approach for any controversial monster special ability such as energy drain.

If we can get an indication of XP adjustment when using the optional special ability, then great, but even if we don't I wouldn't mind that much.

 

[Philousk]

Okay, you make golems basically immune to magic. That's fine and it's iconic and in most games no sweat.

First, the golems are only partially immune to magic in the current package (in fact, they immunized against: nonmagical weapons except those made of adamantine, disease, cold, fire, lightning, poison and psychic damage. It cannot be charmed, frightened, paralysed, petrified, stunned or put to sleep as it does not need to sleep, eat or breathe : Effects that are often generated by spells, yes ! Rather, Golems have magic resistance giving them an advantage on saving throws against magical effects. So to, I think it's a bit like the parsimony that the author speaks as the golem is not fully or effectively immune to magic unlike previous editions.

They talk about using creative means to defeat such creatures, but that isn't how it goes. What happens is that one or more of the players has to sit there bored and useless while the rest of the party kills it. If a creature is immune to weapons, the spellcasters kill it. If the creature is immune to magic, the weapon-users kill it.

It is not quite accurate. The caster can still use spells so indirectly by modifying or controlling the combat environment. A golem may well be immune to many things under spells, but it will not be as immune against the slippery ground following a spell of Grease or spells Wall (x) may well also stop or walling. At least for a while ...

For example, I wouldn't give rakshasa immunity to almost all levels of spells by default

This is very interesting to consider the point of view of magic resistance (MR) option. As there are several types of golem (well historically), MR may operate differently depending on the type of golem. For example, the clay golem could be resistant against spells level 1-2 (the player embodies a wizard with a scroll in his possession containing offensive spell of the highest level that can be effective against the golem could also not to feel aggrieved for the encounter) while the iron golem could be resistant against the 1-8 spells!


Rakshasa and other monsters of the same ilk, could also operate in much the same way, but it certainly will be necessary to further define their social castes.

 

[Falling Icicle]

I really hope that next edition wants to get finally get rid of this kind of assumptions.

This is exactly the kind of assumptions that made 3e so rigid against playstyles that differ from the edition's chosen one.

If 5e wants to be inclusive, they really should kill this type of assumptions, all of them or at least as many as possible. It doesn't matter whether the assumption of +1 weapons is much milder than 3e assumption of +N every M levels, they have the same consequence.

We should already have had some ideas on how many people do not want to have even +1 weapons in their game, just by reading these forums everyday.

I'm not a fan of +X weapons, either. I think they're boring. But the reality is that they exist, and in a game which is largely about killing things and taking their stuff, the idea of never getting a magic weapon at all, not even the weakest kind, is simply unthinkable. Granted, not everyone plays that way. One of the things I really liked about magic items in Next is how they were not a required part of character progression. Needing a magic weapon to have a chance of hurting a monster is directly contrary to that goal. If magic items are to be optional, then things like immunity to non-magical weapons need to be optional too.

 

[delericho]

So, "golems are supposed to be rare!" isn't going to be a very good defense. In a particular DM's game, they might not be so rare.

Of course, limiting this to named NPC-style monsters helps that. If ORCUS is immune to magic, that's probably fine. There's only one orcus.

Your other solutions work peachy, but they do rely on a DM pre-empting problems that they might not even know about before they're problems. The system should probably help DMs avoid those mistakes in the first place.

Yep, I basically agree with this. As far as possible, baseline versions of monsters should stay away from blanket immunities, and instead have reasonably strong resistances instead. Then, as part of whatever advancement options they give for the monsters, they can offer the blanket immunity.

That way, a DM is unlikely to stumble onto a game-breaking issue, while those DMs who want blanket immunity are making a (presumably informed) choice to have that in their game. Everyone wins.

And of course, for named and/or unique monsters (Orcus, the Tarrasque, etc), it's absolutely fine to have blanket immunity as the baseline, since such creatures are inherently rare.

 

[Li Shenron]

I'm not a fan of +X weapons, either. I think they're boring. But the reality is that they exist, and in a game which is largely about killing things and taking their stuff, the idea of never getting a magic weapon at all, not even the weakest kind, is simply unthinkable. Granted, not everyone plays that way. One of the things I really liked about magic items in Next is how they were not a required part of character progression. Needing a magic weapon to have a chance of hurting a monster is directly contrary to that goal. If magic items are to be optional, then things like immunity to non-magical weapons need to be optional too.

But they are optional, at the very minimum because you can choose which monsters to use exactly in the same way the DM can choose which magic items to allow, but only as long as they aren't too many. Your suggestion of making them even optional for those monsters who have them (i.e. keep them in the "customization" bar) make things even better, of course.

The problem is that as soon as the game "assumes" even +1 weapons will be common, then also monsters with +1 DR or immunity will be common, which is exactly what neither of us want. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy!

And by the way, it is indeed unthinkable that magic weapons aren't in a game of D&D (except the most grim'n'gritty campaigns, but they are rare). But don't confuse magic weapons with +1 magic weapons!

3e made an abysmal design choice when they required every single magic weapon to be at least +1, so that there cannot be any magic weapon with a special property unless it also had some +s. There is no valid reason for that mistake, and I hope 5e isn't doing the same, but if 5e doesn't assume anything then it also allows every DM to simply ignore the + on whatever weapon or armor and just have magic weapons and armors that grant some other form of benefit. And this is exactly what I am going to do, because with bounded accuracy around, I don't want even +1 weapons in my game.

 

[Li Shenron]

Yep, I basically agree with this. As far as possible, baseline versions of monsters should stay away from blanket immunities, and instead have reasonably strong resistances instead. Then, as part of whatever advancement options they give for the monsters, they can offer the blanket immunity.

That way, a DM is unlikely to stumble onto a game-breaking issue, while those DMs who want blanket immunity are making a (presumably informed) choice to have that in their game. Everyone wins.

Might be, but I am not so sure about it...

A DM might accidentally pick a monster with "immunity to nonmagical weapons", then in the first round of combat, she's going to notice that in her campaign she's banned magic weapons so obviously the PC can't hurt the monster with weapons. What does she do? She has to make a call on whether there are enough spellcasters to fight this monster, otherwise she can just ignore the immunity.

Instead, if the DM accidentally picks a monster that has resistance to all nonmagic weapon damage, it is definitely more difficult to notice if this is wrong, because the DM may just think the monster is fine and only realize after a few rounds that the PCs are not going to make it. Then it will be clearly much less nice to remove the immunity or handwave some discount in the middle of the fight.

 

[Falling Icicle]

But don't confuse magic weapons with +1 magic weapons!

3e made an abysmal design choice when they required every single magic weapon to be at least +1, so that there cannot be any magic weapon with a special property unless it also had some +s. There is no valid reason for that mistake, and I hope 5e isn't doing the same, but if 5e doesn't assume anything then it also allows every DM to simply ignore the + on whatever weapon or armor and just have magic weapons and armors that grant some other form of benefit. And this is exactly what I am going to do, because with bounded accuracy around, I don't want even +1 weapons in my game.

I'm pretty sure that every magic weapon in Next has at least a +1 bonus. I'm not sure if that's a requirement or just happens to be something all of the example weapons have. Like you, if I had my way, +X weapons wouldn't even exist. Magic weapons would instead be all about their special powers, like whether they ignite in flames or glow when orcs are nearby. But oh well, it's not a big deal to me. They got rid of +4 and higher items and made even +2 and +3 items very rare and precious. That's good enough for me.