[+] Tiered damage resistance

[CapnZapp]

I'd really like you to explore this house rule (in another thread, I presume).

The problem is this: for any monster, except possibly those of the lowest CR, that features damage resistance (or immunity etc), like this...

Resistances bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing damage from nonmagical attacks​

...this trait is essentially fluff, unless you run a non-standard low magic campaign.

I would say the probability of a golem or devil actually benefiting from damage resistance against level-appropriate heroes is very low or even non-existing. Almost every adventure I've seen for 5e will have handed out a magic weapon by level 5 or so. Bothering to tell us Iron Golems or Pit Fiends or Kraken need magic weaponry to be damaged fully is basically a joke.

I do understand the value of signaling "this monster can't be killed by regular town militia", but if you're as bothered by this as I am, I offer you the following simple suggestion:

We divide monsters into three rough tiers:

1. Heroic monsters (CR up to ~10) remain unchanged.
2. Paragon monsters (CR approx 10 - 20) with damage resistance now needs +2 weapons
3. Epic monsters (CR above ~20) with damage resistance now needs +3 weapons

This means an Erinyes now resists your magical sword unless it specifically has a +2 bonus (or greater), since we deem it a paragon monster (its CR is 12).

These tiers are not meant to be strict. If your story benefits from making a noble Werebear immune to +1 weapons despite being "only" CR 5, then so be it.

If a material is specified (such as silver) this makes the weapon count as one step higher. An adamantine +1 sword cuts through the damage immunity of an Iron Golem, despite not being +2.

Zapp

PS. Please note I made this a "plus thread". I really don't need any "this is why this is a bad idea" posts. Thanks

 

[CapnZapp]

What would then the impact be, if you should adopt such a rule? What would be good to keep in mind to make this work well?

The most obvious change is that adventurers can no longer scoff at monsters for having utterly useless damage resistances!

Obviously you need to decide when and where to supply magic +2 weapons. By this I mean: the rules does not require heroes to ever get around damage resistance, but it sure would make for great treasure to martial characters.

My best suggestion would be: after the party has had to face resistance once or twice, and perhaps even had to retreat in the face of immunity once. Then that gets old, and it's time to place a +2 weapon as loot (or in your magic shoppes, should you feature them).

Magic Weapon the spell becomes relevant again.

You need to consider classes whose natural attacks become magical - for example wildshaped moon druids. Here's a simple progression... feedback on this is welcome!
6th level: your attacks overcome resistance and immunity to nonmagical attacks and damage
11th level: your attacks overcome resistance and immunity to +1 attacks and damage
16th level: your attacks overcome resistance and immunity to +2 attacks and damage

 

[Warmaster Horus]

Would this stage to other types of damage inflicted by, say, spells? This method seems to focus on melee/ranged combatants but has no effect on magic use. Is that an intentional bias?

 

[CapnZapp]

Would this stage to other types of damage inflicted by, say, spells? This method seems to focus on melee/ranged combatants but has no effect on magic use. Is that an intentional bias?

Not exactly intentional, that's just how things work out and have worked out in previous editions - damage resistance is solely about physical weapons.

If you'd like to houserule magic resistance (or spell resistance) that's a whole nother kettle of fish

 

[Matrix Sorcica]

We divide monsters into three rough tiers:

Heroic monsters (CR up to ~10) remain unchanged.
Paragon monsters (CR approx 10 - 20) with damage resistance now needs +2 weapons
Epic monsters (CR above ~20) with damage resistance now needs +3 weapons

Not bad, not bad at all. This can then be modified as needed for a given monster for added lethality, such as:

Heroic monsters (CR up to ~10) remain unchanged.
Paragon monsters (CR approx 10 - 20) with damage resistance now needs +2 weapons, immune to "+0" weapons. Material counts as one "plus".
Epic monsters (CR above ~20) with damage resistance now needs +3 weapons, immune to +1 weapons. Material counts as one "plus".

Would this stage to other types of damage inflicted by, say, spells? This method seems to focus on melee/ranged combatants but has no effect on magic use. Is that an intentional bias?

Intestingly enough, resistance to magic weapons becomes useless after just a few levels, magic resistance keeps being useful across all tiers.

 

[Warmaster Horus]

...Intestingly enough, resistance to magic weapons becomes useless after just a few levels, magic resistance keeps being useful across all tiers.

True, assuming a save is involved.

 

[CapnZapp]

Formalizing my ideas concerning class abilities like Primal Strike, where a character gets magical attacks:

Any class feature that makes attacks count as magical for the purpose of overcoming resistance and immunity to nonmagical attacks and damage are automatically upgraded one step (to +2, then to +3) for every five character levels above the level where the ability is first attainable.

Examples:

• The unarmed strikes of a level 11 character with at least 6 levels of Monk count as magical +2 weapons for the purpose of overcoming resistance and immunity to attacks and damage made with +1 weapons.
• The attacks in beast form of a level 16 character with at least 6 levels of Moon Druid count as magical +3 weapons for the purpose of overcoming resistance and immunity to attacks and damage made with +2 weapons.
• The attacks using a pact weapon by a level 3+5=8 character with at least 3 levels of Pact Blade Warlock count as magical +2 weapons for the purpose of overcoming resistance and immunity to attacks and damage made with +1 weapons.

Additionally, the new spell Magic Fang is added to the spell list of Rangers and Druids. It works exactly like Magic Weapon in every respect, except it only works on natural weapons and unarmed strikes instead of "non-magical weapons". (Touch the Monk's foot or the Wolf's teeth)

 

[pming]

Hiya!

O_O

Wow. I think I actually wholeheartedly agree with you [MENTION=12731]CapnZapp[/MENTION] for once! (looks up to see if any pigs are flying around...). Usually we disagree on quite a bit...nice to see we don't on this one.

^_^

Paul L. Ming

PS: This is actually a house rule that I put in place a couple sessions into when we first started playing the 'full game' (re: the PHB, DMG and MM were all out). Not exact, CR wise iirc, but the same 1e/2e thing about +'s.

 

[toucanbuzz]

We recently played Out of the Abyss and I opted to make the Demon Lords resistant to magic weapons of less than +3 enchantment. They're virtual demi-gods and while neutered a bit in abilities from prior editions, they're still the ultimate bad guy, and it explains why Orcus can't just swamp Demogorgon with an army of skeletons led by Death Knights.

In summary, it made the finale fight last a bit longer, but it gave huge advantage to spellcasters using Force damage as there's almost nothing that resists it. Our Monk found it more economical to use a Wand of Magic Missiles than to use his +2 sword in such case.

If you're going that route, you may need to consider modifying Magic Weapon and similar spells to give greater equivalents, which would bring those into play much more, and consider if you'll be harming the Fighter classes and advantaging casters.

 

[Warmaster Horus]

Maintaining my devil's advocate stance, the only problem I see is that this just makes players covet higher bonus weapons. And what about Legendary or other 'descriptive' effect weapons? Do they suffer because they lack a given +? Perhaps instead of a bonus to hit, eligibility is also handled by weapon rarity? I have a hard time seeing an artifact doing reduced damage to a Marilith.