[+] Tiered damage resistance

[Leatherhead]

How do I put this in a way that doesn't violate a "plus thread"?

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.

I'm seconding this. Flame Tongue, for instance, is as rare as a +2 Sword, but has no +2. And conversely Common Magic Weapons would be just as effective as an Uncommon +1 Sword.

 

[CapnZapp]

I do like the idea of a “key material” counting as a +, ala the +1 adamantine weapon vs the golem.

Thank you

I don't see very much actual designer feedback on my proposed houserules, but first let me ask you this:

Do you actually believe it is a problem that per RAW damage resistance is mostly a non-issue? You don't need to reply to me, just to yourself. I'm asking because if your answer is "no", this thread is simply not for you.

Furthermore, if I'm not replying to suggestions revolving around rarity it is not because of disrespect. I simply don't use rarity in my games. It is a complete nonfactor.

How do I put this in a way that doesn't violate a "plus thread"?

Thank you for respecting my wishes. You are certainly free to express your full thoughts - just start a new thread

If you're still reading, here are a few specific questions:
* Does the monster tiers look good to you? That is, do you have any thoughts on the impact of placing the cutoff for +2 weaponry at CR 10+? And the cutoff for +3 weaponry at CR 20+?
* Does the "inherent" magical bonuses from, say, a Monk's kick, look good to you? That is, does "every five levels" sound about right to you. Initially I thought "lets use every 6 levels, that looks the most elegant" for each step, meaning +2 at level 12 and +3 at level 18. But then I applied caution. The idea is that, yes, there will be the occasional fight vs a resisting monster unless you focus your looting/shopping on a weapon, but monks and druids are obviously meant to not have to RELY on magic weapons, so in the end I settled for 5. In my opinion, 4 would be too generous - at level 10 and especially 14 the monk would likely be ahead of the fighters, which didn't feel right.
* A basic question: does my phrasing hold up to scrutiny? I tried to word it so it would apply in as many cases as possible. I mean monks and moon druids may express the archetypical ability, but there are a lot of less-obvious cases. So far I've found bladelocks and forge clerics. There may be more.
* This does mean the levels for Forge Clerics (XGE) will be very generous (1, 6, 11) but is that really a problem...? Bladelocks have 3, 8, 13.
* is it sufficiently clear that you don't actually get +3 weapons? (You only get to bypass resistance as if you had a +3 weapon; you don't actually get the +3 attack and damage bonus)
* did you notice how I based the ability on character levels? I could not justify forcing class levels, since the Monk 6/Whatever 10 character will need +3 fists just as much. Is there's a hidden catch I haven't seen?

Thank you

 

[CapnZapp]

Flame Tongue, for instance, is as rare as a +2 Sword, but has no +2.

OTOH its fire damage ignores damage reistance.

In general, I'm fine with the existance of "+0" magic swords like sharp or vicious.

I am fully open to handing out +1 and +2 versions of such swords, should it ever become a real practical issue. But from where I stand it looks like a theoretical problem that those swords won't penetrate high-tier DR. There's a lot of weapons that won't be able to penetrate high-tier DR, after all.

Maybe the easiest fix is to make such swords out of special materials (a silvered Vicious Sword or a cold iron Sword of Sharpness maybe?). Since this would push the issue all the way up to epic tier, that's good enough for me.

 

[CapnZapp]

By the way, here's a useful resource in this context:

<snip>

So here is a list of monsters with "Damage Immunity: bludgeoning, slashing or piercing damage from non-magical weapons." and their CR. A fair number take full damage from silvered or adamantine weapons, and this is also noted.

Jacklewere CR 1/2 (!), Silvered
Wererat, CR 2, Silvered
Werewolf, CR 3, Silvered
Coatl, CR 4
Wereboar, CR 4, Silvered
Weretiger, CR 4, Silvered
Werebear, CR 5, Silvered
Flesh Golem, CR 5, Adamantine
Clay Golem, CR 9 Adamantine
Stone Golem, CR 10, Adamantine
Rakshasa, CR 13 (also has Damage Vulnerabilities: Piercing from magic weapons wielded by good creatures.)
Mummy Lord, CR 15
Iron Golem, CR 16, Adamantine
Androsphink, CR 17
Demilich, CR 18, (And also has Damage Resistance: bludgeoning, slashing or piercing damage from magic weapons!)
Lich, CR 21
Empyrean, CR 23
Kraken, CR 23
Tarrasque, CR 30

<snip>

In a similar note looking at damage resistance or immunity; overcome by Adamantine or Silvered weapons.

Adamantine
“Resistant or Immune to bludgeoning, slashing or piercing damage from non-magical weapons that aren't Adamantine”

Gargoyle, CR 2, Resistant
Helmed Horror, CR 4, Resistant
Xorn CR 5, "Resistant to piercing and slashing from non-magical weapons that aren't adamantine" – So takes full damage from non-magical bludgeoning weapons.
Flesh Golem, CR 5, Immune
Clay Golem, CR 9, Immune
Stone Golem, CR 10, Immune
Iron Golem, CR 16, Immune

Now awkwardly Adamantine weapons aren't actually detailed in either the PHB or DMG, as I noted here: http://community.wizards.com/forum/rules-questions/threads/4168056

Silvered
“Resistant or Immune to bludgeoning, slashing or piercing damage from non-magical weapons that aren't silvered”
Mostly lycanthropes and devils, but two undead as well.

Jacklewere CR 1/2, Immune
Imp, CR 1, Resistant (Devil)
Spined Devil, CR 2, Resistant (Devil)
Wererat, CR 2, Immune (Lycanthrope)
Bearded Devil, CR 3, Resistant (Devil)
Werewolf, CR 3, Immune (Lycanthrope)
Wight, CR 3, Resistant (Undead)
Wereboar, CR 4, Immune (Lycanthrope)
Weretiger, CR 4, Immune (Lycanthrope)
Barbed Devil, CR 5, Resistant (Devil)
Werebear, CR 5, Immune (Lycanthrope)
Wraith, CR 5, Resistant (Undead)
Chain Devil, CR 8, Resistant (Devil)
Bone Devil, CR 9, Resistant (Devil)
Horned Devil, CR 11, Resistant (Devil)
Erinyes, CR 12, Resistant (Devil)
Ice Devil, CR 14, Resistant (Devil)
Pit Fiend, CR 20, Resistant (Devil)

Unlike adamantine, silvered weapons are specified in the PHB. Not bad for something that costs +100gp to a weapon, but far fewer undead than I initially thought.

https://forum.rpg.net/showthread.ph...cations-of-non-magical-weapon-immunity-and-CR

 

[Horwath]

How about

CR up to 4 with damage resistance require uncommon weapon,

CRs from 5 to 10 needs rare weapon,

CRs from 11 to 16 needs very rare weapon,

CRs 17-24 needs legendary weapons,

CRs 25+ needs artifact weapons,

 

[dave2008]

How about

CR up to 4 with damage resistance require uncommon weapon,

CRs from 5 to 10 needs rare weapon,

CRs from 11 to 16 needs very rare weapon,

CRs 17-24 needs legendary weapons,

CRs 25+ needs artifact weapons,

I'm not sure if these CR levels are correct, but I think I like this better than +1, etc. It makes it easy to say:

Damage Resistances. bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing from items more common than Legendary

or

Damage Resistances. Items more common than Legendary

could cover non-physical attacks maybe

 

[DEFCON 1]

There's definitely something to what you are talking about, where damage resistance to non-magical weapons is pretty much a non-factor to any campaign that isn't specifically run as low-(or no)-magic games. And the urge to make monsters more resistant to less-powerful weapons makes total sense. This is especially true in a campaign such as yours, Capn, where the ability to buy magic items is a central part of what you are trying to put together for your own game.

On the face of it... I think your baseline works fine:

Up to CR 10, you need a +1 magic weapon to overcome resistance
CR 10 to 20, you need a +2 magic weapon to overcome resistance
CR 20+, you need a +3 magic weapon to overcome resistance

Now that being said... I'll add on a few things that I personally would probably want to think about changing/using/making more important were I to go along this path. None of this stuff might matter to other people (and if so for you Capn, feel to to ignore and just go with your baseline above as I don't see it being that big an issue.)

First off... the thing I've always found a little troubling about Plus magical weapons is the lack of story to them. Other than the fact that they are "enchanted strongly"... there's nothing about them that narratively gives them any heft. How do you describe in-game the difference between a +1 and a +2 magic weapon? There's no "hook" to help describe those mechanics from a story perspective. And what's doubly troubling in that regard is that they then overlap but don't connect at all with the other narrative device of "more powerful" weapons, which is how the weapons are made or what with.

We have qualities such as Masterwork, Silvered, Mithril, Adamantine etc. that we use to signal "better" or "more deadly", and these are narrative explanations. A Silvered weapon has a story... "My weapon has been silvered, and thus is better against certain monsters". But a +1 weapon is storyless. It's just a non-descriptive "magic weapon" since this +1 is purely a game mechanics term and thus is nothing that a person in-world would be able to explain. And I think this is why the game purely uses "damage resistance to non-magical weapons"... because there's nothing in the game world that a character could use to describe the differences between a +1 or +2 or +3. Especially when going up against other characters who have story explanations to their weapon's qualities.

"This is my magic weapon... which is just more magical than your magic weapon."
"Mine can burst into flames."
"Yeah, but mine is... just more. It's... one point... more... of magic? than yours."

So in this regard... I almost have a desire (and this has been true in past editions too, not just 5E) to either throw out your basic Plus weapons, or make those Plus weapons have a story definition to them so that they can be described in-game. I did this more basically in my last Curse of Strahd campaigns... where I said that +1 weapons were Masterwork weapons. They still gave a +1 bonus to attack and damage and thus were better than an equivalent regular one... but that +1 now had a story as to why it was one point better-- it was built as a Masterwork.

Getting back to the original point though... if this kind of tiering for damage resistance was to be introduced... I think I would make the tiering based upon story reasons, not game mechanic explanation reasons. And to do that, I might think about making the "magical quality" of the weapon come from an in-story and explainable reason due to what it was made from, rather than just "it's magic!" Especially considering our magical metals and such currently have rather unimportant and much less used uses if and when they do show up. So for example, I might say:

At baseline, you have regular weapons. Non-magical, no bonuses.
One tier up, you have Silvered weapons. This is equivalent to and replaces the "+1" nomenclature.
Up from that, you have Mithril weapons. These are equivalent to and replace "+2".
At the top, you have Adamantine weapons. These replace the "+3" nomenclature.

By doing this, you now have a narrative descriptor to attach to monsters that characters in game can use to describe things. They know that some monsters are resistant to weapons that aren't Silvered or higher-quality weapons (these are the monsters under CR 10 that don't have damage resistance). Some monsters CAN be harmed by Silvered weapons, and instead you need extremely special Mithril (or better) weapons to harm them (ones in the CR 10-20 categories). And then there are the deadliest of monsters that require you to find or somehow forge the extremely rare Adamantine weapons (for monsters CR 20 or higher).

By doing this... not only do you make the concept of Silvered, Mithril and Adamantine have much more of an impact in the game world (where they currently are kind of shoved off to the side because the Plus weapons are the ones that are used as the mechanical heft of the system)... but you also make weapon categories that PCs and NPCs can actually talk about in-game.

***

Now were you to do something like this... the next point is deciding whether or not Silvered, Mithril, and Adamantine should include the equivalent mechanical bonuses in addition to being the descriptor for power and overcoming resistance. In other words... do all Silvered weapons grant a +1 to attack and damage, all Mithril grant a +2 and Adamantine grant a +3? For my money... I really don't know if they have to? And indeed, whether it's actually important to the game for magic weapons to do so? There are already so many different basic ways to grant PCs bonuses to attack rolls and damage rolls, that having "magic weapons" do so too seems kind of superfluous and doesn't make them seem "special". Instead, it's all the cool extra stuff that magic weapons grant that make those weapons special. The Wounding properties, the Vorpal properties, Dancing, Bane, Venom, Life Stealing, Sharpness etc. etc. etc. Those qualities have narrative heft and what make "magic weapons" special-- not the basic bonus to attacks and damage.

I mean if we think about it from the most basic game mechanics level... a 1st Cleric can cast Bless... thereby granting three characters what is almost functionally a +4 magic weapon (25% of the time). Yes, it is merely a +4 to attack rolls and not also to damage, but still. How can we sit here and legitimately think that a '+3 magic weapon' is this ultra-rare, super-powerful item that only the highest level PCs should have... when functionally it is mechanically equivalent to a couple spells that PCs can get at 1st level?

If you have a low-level Cleric and a Paladin in a group and they cast Bless and Divine Favor on the Paladin... the Paladin for an entire fight has ostensibly a variable +1 to +4 magic weapon (+1d4 attack roll bonus for Bless, +1d4 damage bonus for Divine Favor). And the game then wants us to believe that having a +3 magic weapon is somehow this massive boon? Not likely. Hell... you take 1 level of Fighter and you get half of a +2 magic weapon for free (+2 damage from the Duelist fighting style.)

And that's the problem as I see it with using Plus weapons as the indicator of "importance" for magical weapons. They grant bonuses that PCs have already be getting since 1st level. Sure, the bonus is "always on" and require no expended resources... but how many of us have ever NOT cast Bless because it was an expendable resource? So for my money... we should just remove the Pluses from magic weapons altogether and use all the other magical properties and qualities to define the kind of power they have. And save the attack roll and damage roll bonuses for your most basic of features and spell effects since we've been getting these since the beginning anyway.

 

[Krachek]

If you want a monster immune from regular milita, you should aim for immunity or DR10 like in old time.
Resistance will only make monsters last longer. With enough milita you will still slay them.

 

[Stalker0]

Well sure, if it's "all physical damage" resistance or immunity.

But you can freely add "magical immunity" in there to creatures too. I've done that to a hilarious level of fun again casters.

Funny enough I think way more high level monsters have magic resistance than “true” physical resistance (aka resistance that isn’t just negated by the weapons those warriors are going to have).

I think the rarity idea makes sense and it easy to include both. You can say “any +2 or very rare weapon”. That works for people that use rarity, and those that don’t

 

[dave2008]

I think the rarity idea makes sense and it easy to include both. You can say “any +2 or very rare weapon”. That works for people that use rarity, and those that don’t

Really just need rarity though. The + weapons have a rarity.