D&D (2024) The problem with weapon damage resistances.

Leatherhead

Possibly a Idiot.
While reading up on all the changes to monsters for the 5.5 edition, or whatever they are going to call it, it occurred to me that the default way that 5e handles monsters who have a weakness to special material weapons, like devils and their aversion to silver, isn't handled to the best of the systems ability.

Currently a Bone Devil has resistances to Bludgeoning, Piercing, and Slashing from Nonmagical Attacks that aren't Silvered. Meaning they take normal damage from either silver or magical weapons. Which is less of a weakness, and more of a "You must be this tall to ride" sign that allows the PCs to use platform shoes. It also has the unfortunate side effect of a magical weapon being a one stop shop for all your resistance and often times immunity needs. While this is nice from a balance perspective due to simplicity, it is also boring as heck because there is no reward for using a silvered weapon on top of or instead of a magical weapon, totally wasting the design space.

In another famous example, the Werewolf, they tried to give immunity to nonmangical and nonsilvered weapon damage. But that proved to be less than desirable as it only served to lock mundane characters out of being effective for the fight, and let casters destroy them with cantrips without any considerable changes at all. The designer response to this was the monster called the Loup Garou, which cannot be killed without silvered weapons (or at least some way to prevent healing) due to their regeneration ability. Needless to say, this is not a practical solution outside of heavily horror games, and even then it can be cheesed by using a simple cantrip (Chill Touch) or a single silvered weapon strike after the party unloads their normal routine.

My solution to this problem is admittedly a bit more complex in terms of wording that WotC may be initially comfortable with, but it is simple enough in play: Give these enemies Resistance and Vulnerability to Silvered weapons. Vulnerability and Resistance cancel each other out, which gives normal damage. Interestingly enough WotC future proofed themselves this time, as multiple resistances don't stack, so adding another resistance isn't going to make monsters harder. Furthermore Vulnerability is a near vestigial mechanic in this edition, with only 100 out of the 2000+ stat blocks for monsters using the mechanic, and honestly players love when they hit a Vulnerability, so it should be used more.

My proposed changes look like this:

A Bone Devil would now have resistances to Bludgeoning, Piercing, and Slashing from Nonmagical Attacks (deleting the part about Silvered weapons). But also Vulnerability to attacks from Silvered weapons. Because a resistance and a Vulnerability cancel each other out, the new damage results would be: x1/2 for normal weapons, x1 for silver or magic weapons, and x2 for silver and magic weapons. This allows for more tiers of readiness.
  • The PCs have to duke it out with their resisted weapons.
  • The PC's use consumables or other resources (like the Magic Weapon spell) to normalize their damage.
  • The PC's use a bit of prep work to get silvered weapons (or just luckily have a magic weapon on hand) for normal damage without using consumables.
  • The PC's use consumables in conjunction with their prep work to actually exploit the vulnerability.
  • The PC's get special magic and silvered weapons designed for the purposes of slaying such creatures.
The werewolf could keep their immunities (though there is an argument against that), with the the Silver Vulnerability added to that. The trick here is the addition of a resistance to nonmagical weapons on top of their immunity to nonmagical and nonsilvered weapons. At first glance this seems redundant, but the two categories are actually different. Allowing us to use most of the same clever mechanics from the Bone Devil. In summery, a normal weapon is totally ignored. A silvered weapon is both resisted and vulnerable which evens out. A magic weapon deals normal damage. And once again a magic silvered weapon is a true weakness.
 

log in or register to remove this ad


Staffan

Legend
I'm pretty sure I've seen one developer mention a few years back (might have been Mearls, but I'm not sure) that the reason there are so few vulnerabilities is that they make things too easy. Doubling damage is much too strong to use other than in very special circumstances.

Also, most of the cases where you have resistance to "Bludgeoning, Piercing, and Slashing from Nonmagical Attacks that aren't Silvered" or the equivalent aren't meant to be creatures that are extra vulnerable to silver attacks. I'm not sure it was a thing in AD&D, but I think the silver thing with devils in particular was added in 3.5e, where low-level devils had DR penetrated by "silver or good" weapons, mid-level just had "good", and high-level ones needed "silver and good" weapons. Same thing with demons and cold iron. I think the only large-scale monster type where an actual vulnerability would be appropriate are fey, who are supposed to shun and fear cold iron.
 

Yaarel

He Mage
Relatedly, regarding "bludgeoning, piercing, slashing" damage types, it seems like a design space that turned out too impractical to implement.

Would we lose anything significant if simplifying all three down to one "weapon damage" type?

The skeleton comes to mind with its vulnerability to bludgeoning, but it seems not worth complicating the entire gaming engine for it.
 

Charlaquin

Goblin Queen (She/Her/Hers)
Relatedly, regarding "bludgeoning, piercing, slashing" damage types, it seems like a design space that turned out too impractical to implement.

Would we lose anything significant if simplifying all three down to one "weapon damage" type?

The skeleton comes to mind with its vulnerability to bludgeoning, but it seems not worth complicating the entire gaming engine for it.
4e already did this. Bringing Bludgeoning, Piercing, and Slashing back for 5e was a symbolic gesture to appease the anti-4e crowd, and skeletons were the token “see? We promise this will actually matter sometimes!” monster. There are a few others, but they all exist solely to gesture at the design space weapon damage types could open up, so the folks who want that complexity don’t get too upset by the fact that the design space isn’t really utilized anywhere else. Worked well enough for the playtest, but I wouldn’t be surprised to see it gone next edition.
 

Charlaquin

Goblin Queen (She/Her/Hers)
Gesturing at design space the game could utilize was pretty much WotC’s whole strategy with the 5e playtest. Design a game full of potential avenues for expansion so that people who want to see those avenues expanded on will buy in. Then never expand on those avenues to avoid upsetting the people who don’t want to see them expanded on. Promise modularity, deliver an unfinished game. Everybody wins! (?)
 

Yaarel

He Mage
Gesturing at design space the game could utilize was pretty much WotC’s whole strategy with the 5e playtest. Design a game full of potential avenues for expansion so that people who want to see those avenues expanded on will buy in. Then never expand on those avenues to avoid upsetting the people who don’t want to see them expanded on. Promise modularity, deliver an unfinished game. Everybody wins! (?)
I am open to the idea of complex weapons, like chain armor grants resistance to slashing, but the cost in complexity gains little benefit return.

Even the scenarios that I can think of arent worth the complexity. I guess the entire D&D tradition has rejected 1e weapon complexity.

I am satisfied with one "weapon damage" type.

If I think about it, I like organizing the weapons table into groups for thematic reasons, but even this lacks verisimilitude in terms of which weapons assemblage one is likely to train in. For example, historically one is more likely to train in axe and spear plus maybe bow and sword, rather than longsword with greatsword.

The "weapon damage" seems sufficient.
 

First: I like your Idea!

Second: I also like the Idea of just needing a silvered weapon for the final kill and otherwise having a high regeneration. That works well for the troll and makes sure, everyone can contribute. It is also more fun than just doing half or even no damage at all, when hit points represent more than just bodily health.

Third: I also like resistance to magical weapons, as this will make sure that only the heroes with magical weapons can save the day.

So maybe all those things can be combined. Reistance to nonmagical weapons + regeneration against anything but silver would be my favourite.
On top of that I would like every PC class to have their weapon attacks be treated as magical by level 5 to 7 or so.

I am not sure vulnerability is the best mechanic in many cases, as doubling and halving damage at the same time seems to be a hassle.
I can however see some creatures not having resistance and still having vulneravility to silvered weapons or such and no regeneration.
 

One of the dissapointing things about 5e for me is the looseness in the design of things like spell schools and damage types (e.g how is force and thunder different?)

I feel like a shill sometimes but I do prefer how Shadow of the Demon Lord does it.

There are virtually no monsters that have any resistance to mundane weapons. So the system truly doesn't assume magical weapons are necessary. There are also mamy creatures that take half damage from spells.

As a result it addresses the power gap quite effectively between martials and casters and makes magic weapons a nice to have rather than an essential one.

Lastly for some items that monsters are vulnerable to (like iron for demons and faeries) it imposes an impaired condition (basically disadvantage) rather than doing extra damage.
 

1. Resistance to normal weapons.
2. Resistance to weapon type (a) bludgeoning (b) slashing and/or (c) piercing.
3. Immunity to normal weapons.
4. Specific weapons (a) silvered (b) adamantine-made and/or (c) blessed/radiant charged negate regeneration.
5. Resistance to magic weapons unless (a) silvered (b) adamantine-made and/or (c) blessed/radiant charged.

The above is what I'm contemplating for some monster home-brewery. I've ignored vulnerability.
 

Remove ads

AD6_gamerati_skyscraper

Remove ads

Recent & Upcoming Releases

Top