D&D (2024) 2024 - Do magic weapons bypass resistance now?

[MerricB]

These arguments are making me want to put back in resistances to tiered magic weapons +1, +2, +3, etc. into the game.

And you're wondering, "Why do you hate your players so much?"

"I'm an old school DM. It's what I do!"

But it's actually more nuanced than that. The trouble with the current resistances is that they're pretty much all just affecting spellcasters. There's nothing impeding fighters from just using the same tactics fight after fight. And I find that really, really boring.

There was a fight against a jackalwere in a DDAL adventure once where the designer (Shawn Merwin) made sure to include a couple of silver weapons. What then did the rest of the fighters do? They grappled the jackalwere, knocked him prone, and held him down. (My cleric then cast inflict wounds on him. You have a much better chance of hitting a prone jackalwere!)

I have no quibble with those who feel that resistance to non-magical weapons is mostly meaningless in 5E. It absolutely is past very low levels - and the balancing of monsters has been very bad even ignoring that (and gets worse when it's part of the game). But I don't really want to remove it. I want to ramp it up so it matters more.

But - with that - comes a few game design issues you need to consider. And primary amongst them is how can the players deal with the situation where they don't have the right weapon. This is something that 3E (in particular) tended to handle better. Because you had spells and consumable magic items that would allow you to temporarily overcome the problem.

It wasn't perfect. It is an aspect of the game that requires a lot of thought in how to implement well.

I've been playing a lot of computer games recently - especially JRPGs and their modern versions. And resistances and vulnerabilities are everywhere. They're a large part of the fun of those games - the puzzle of finding the best tactics to overcome these monsters. (I spent a lot of time in Final Fantasy VII Remake trying to work out how to defeat the big challenge fights in the virtual arena).

Meanwhile, I sit down to run my D&D 2024 games, and I find that the sorcerer has access to cantrips and spells which allow them to switch damage type at no cost. So, they always have the best weapons against a monster. So why are we bothering with vulnerabilities and resistances at all?

There are adventure design considerations when you go for a more robust resistance situation. Monsters that might not be best faced first time - but only after retreat and research - so it helps when the adventure doesn't require you to defeat everything First Time. (Too many adventures don't even admit the possibility of retreat, and suffer greatly when a group has bad luck... so, why are these cultists still staying in the same place? Oh, it's because if they leave, the adventure falls over because the party can't continue!)

Honestly, I also want to make the artificer feel more varied than the one-trick-pony they often turn into. (Without a reason to vary their tactics, why would they?) Having an artificer who is tinkering and creating different solutions for the different problems they face is far more my ideal than what I see the artificer play as most of the time.

As a side note, I'd also like the answer to every difficult combat to not be "have a paladin in the group". (Radiant damage and permanent saving throw bonuses together? Argh!)

Drawing on the JRPG experience, I'm tempted as a first step really leaning into resistances and vulnerabilities for the elemental types AND bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing damage types.

There's also the thought of a major resistance - reducing damage to 1/4. Immunity can be too punishing at times, but for a select few monsters having major resistance could really ramp up the impact.

So, why am I still tempted to have resistances to +1 to +3 weapons? Well, partly it's just to make the thrill of discovering a better weapon part of the game. I love giving out magic items. (Honestly, the players never will use them all anyway). But it's also to restore the importance of magic weapons that the 2014 version of weapon resistance didn't really capture.

It's not something that can just be done - there's a support structure that needs to go with it. Consumable items (oil of magic weapon), spells, class abilities and the like. Is it possibly too much work? Yeah.

But, honestly, at present I'd really like move more in that direction than the current bland version of 2024 combat where the answer to every situation for the fighter is "hit with big stick".

Cheers!

 

[MerricB]

You're contradicting yourself aren't you? Characters shouldn't have easy access to magic weapons at low levels while simultaneously saying that the solution is to get magic weapons. What if they simply aren't available? I played Curse of Strahd a while back and our fighter could not purchase nor did he find a magic weapon.

To say that official D&D adventures are really terrible at giving out magic weapons rather understates it!

I want resistances to matter, but it needs an approach that isn't just "oh, it'll be okay" - it needs more work than that!

 

[jgsugden]

You're contradicting yourself aren't you? Characters shouldn't have easy access to magic weapons at low levels while simultaneously saying that the solution is to get magic weapons.

No. They shouldn't have magic weapons when you follow the guidelines - but using a monster where it makes a difference in the adventure when they get them? Good use.

What if they simply aren't available? I played Curse of Strahd a while back and our fighter could not purchase nor did he find a magic weapon. He had zero options to significantly help in fights vs lycanthropes.

Read my posts. You were presented with a puzzle. Your fighter friend didn't come up with a solution.

Meanwhile my wizard was completely unaffected. We even shoved the werewolf off a cliff and the only thing that bought us was a few minutes to heal up before it returned.

Did your fighter friend shove the werewolf off the cliff? Because he could have grappled it and thrown it off. It is one of many different things a fighter without a magical weapon could do to contribute to the puzzle.

Reread my points. You did not ingest them. You're speaking like your concerns have not been addressed thoroughly. You're talking like this is a bug, but this is an intended feature, as described and clarified by the designers. They gave these monsters these protections so that they'd be protected from the PCs initially and the PCs would need to be creative.

I think the magic equipment tax is boring and adds little or nothing to the game because the player has no control over whether or not they have access to the required weapon. If the DM provides opportunities to get the weapons, they're all good. If not, they SOL and there's nothing they can do about it. In my opinion, of course.

Just to be clear, again: You are not SOL without a magic weapon when your fighter faces one of these beasts. You're forced to be a little creative and you're not at your full strength. That is not just ok - that is cool. It creates dynamic opportunities for you to do something more than just whack off with your weapon.

You think it is boring. You threw out the cliche XXXXX tax label thinking that it proves your point. However, it isn't a tax when the designers INTENDED for you to face these monsters when you DO NOT have the tools required to harm them.

Other DMs and players have found these abilities, when used right, to be exciting and dynamic. This is an opportunity for you to try something new and learn new ways of approaching the game that offer more ways to enjoy it. Seriously. This is an opportunity. You can either dig in your heels and refuse to consider the idea that you had missed opportunities ... or you can look for an opportunity to make you and your friends happier. Do you want to try to be right, or try to be happier?

Remember: It is indisputable fact that the designers intended for these abilities to work these ways and that DMs and players have found the abilities to create dynamic, fun and challenging encounters. Stating that it does not work is inherently proven false. The best you can state is that you have not made it work - which means you have not tried an approach that works ... which is why I call this an opportunity. In the end there will be many DMs/groups that will never experience this working well. Part of that is the lack of training out there to help DMs understand these elements. Some of that is stubbornness. In the end, we can lead a horse to water, but we can't make him drink or dance the Lambada.

The mechanic works when used as intended. It has been fun for many DMs and groups when used correctly. As with any tool, it can be great when used right or not so great when mishandled. Consider the possibility that you could learn to use it better and get that value.

 

[jgsugden]

...I have no quibble with those who feel that resistance to non-magical weapons is mostly meaningless in 5E. It absolutely is past very low levels - and the balancing of monsters has been very bad even ignoring that (and gets worse when it's part of the game). But I don't really want to remove it. I want to ramp it up so it matters more.
...

One point I have not hit on clearly enough overlaps with what Merric pointed out here: This is an ability meant to be overcome as players advance. It is meant to be introduced when you have to work around it, and then as the characters advance they outgrow it as a concern and it washes out. There are countless elements of D&D that work this way and the failure to recognize it is one of the cornerstone problems with DM training.

The game should evolve ads PCs advance. A murder mystery is great at low level - but a cleric can cast speak with dead and solve it by 3rd level. Sure the DM can have the murdered party have not seen their murderer - but think about what that does. It tells the cleric, "Hey, I'm invalidating that ability you earned. I want to tell this type of story, and that doesn't work if you have that tool, so I'm going to take it away with you so that I can have my fun." Essentially, it reduces D&D to the DM playing with themselves and forcing the players to watch when they do not get an ability to meaningfully use their abilities and tactics as intended.

The game is designed so that you fight Jackalwere and can't hurt them with your non-magical/silvered weapons. Then you get stronger and can. They stop being a big challenge. You feel more powerful. That is the growth players are supposed to feel in the game. It is good.

We get the same thing as PCs gain abilities that allow them to ask Gods to answer questions, to teleport past travel challenges and to use magics and advanced abilities to solve so many things ... You get to challenge your PCs with something, then allow them to realize the things that used to be a challenge are no longer challenging ... and that makes them feel like the powerful heroes of legend.

So for our Jackalweres - your fighter is supposed to face them, be forced to be creative to contribute and maybe share spotlight with another class during the encounter. Then, later on, when similar foes are faced and they have the tools - they appreciate the development.

I think they made some really nice improvements in 2024. I think they also screwed up some things that were better before. This is one of those things.

 

[MerricB]

The game is designed so that you fight Jackalwere and can't hurt them with your non-magical/silvered weapons. Then you get stronger and can. They stop being a big challenge. You feel more powerful. That is the growth players are supposed to feel in the game. It is good.

Yeah. And it's nice when there's tiers beyond that. Which is why I've got this "mad" idea to reintroduce +1, +2, +3 resistances.

You fight at the beginning. It's all good.
You encounter monsters that need +1 weapons. That's a challenge to overcome.
You finally get a consistent +1 solution. It's all good.
You use that solution for a while.
Then you encounter the monsters that need +2 weapons...

It doesn't have to be magic weapons - there are other abilities and conditions where you "tier" them so each one comes up as something you have to overcome and then that is solved, and then there's the next challenge.

Cheers!

 

[Matrix Sorcica]

You could have DR a la 3.X, and then have the DR reduced by each plus and/or material. So DR15/+3, each plus reduces DR by 5. Or 20/blunt. And something like it for Holy, Adamantine etc. weapons. Something to work on.
A monster's "+ requirement" can never be more than half prof. bonus.

 

[AlViking]

No. They shouldn't have magic weapons when you follow the guidelines - but using a monster where it makes a difference in the adventure when they get them? Good use.

Read my posts. You were presented with a puzzle. Your fighter friend didn't come up with a solution.

Did your fighter friend shove the werewolf off the cliff? Because he could have grappled it and thrown it off. It is one of many different things a fighter without a magical weapon could do to contribute to the puzzle.

Reread my points. You did not ingest them. You're speaking like your concerns have not been addressed thoroughly. You're talking like this is a bug, but this is an intended feature, as described and clarified by the designers. They gave these monsters these protections so that they'd be protected from the PCs initially and the PCs would need to be creative.Just to be clear, again: You are not SOL without a magic weapon when your fighter faces one of these beasts. You're forced to be a little creative and you're not at your full strength. That is not just ok - that is cool. It creates dynamic opportunities for you to do something more than just whack off with your weapon.

You think it is boring. You threw out the cliche XXXXX tax label thinking that it proves your point. However, it isn't a tax when the designers INTENDED for you to face these monsters when you DO NOT have the tools required to harm them.

Other DMs and players have found these abilities, when used right, to be exciting and dynamic. This is an opportunity for you to try something new and learn new ways of approaching the game that offer more ways to enjoy it. Seriously. This is an opportunity. You can either dig in your heels and refuse to consider the idea that you had missed opportunities ... or you can look for an opportunity to make you and your friends happier. Do you want to try to be right, or try to be happier?

Remember: It is indisputable fact that the designers intended for these abilities to work these ways and that DMs and players have found the abilities to create dynamic, fun and challenging encounters. Stating that it does not work is inherently proven false. The best you can state is that you have not made it work - which means you have not tried an approach that works ... which is why I call this an opportunity. In the end there will be many DMs/groups that will never experience this working well. Part of that is the lack of training out there to help DMs understand these elements. Some of that is stubbornness. In the end, we can lead a horse to water, but we can't make him drink or dance the Lambada.

The mechanic works when used as intended. It has been fun for many DMs and groups when used correctly. As with any tool, it can be great when used right or not so great when mishandled. Consider the possibility that you could learn to use it better and get that value.

If the solution to low level characters options to effectively fight specific creatures is to ignore the guidance and expectations for the type of treasure they are expected to have then it's not a good solution. Nothing you've suggested "fixes" anything because it's always up to the GM to provide the required weapon. Bury a creature with immunity under a mountain? Perfectly fine if they can get out. Throw them off a cliff? They just bounce at the bottom and get right up because they're unaffected by bludgeoning damage. The only solution for a martial type character to be effective is totally out of their control.

It would be easy to set up a scenario where a 20th level champion fighter would have no chance of survival against a CR 1/2 Jackalwere intent on killing them. Take away the fighter's magical or silver weapon. Don't provide a method of escape, no pits they can be tossed down that permanently trap the creature. The Jackalwere will eventually come out victorious every single time. Give that same fighter a silvered dagger and combat is over in a single round. For that matter, kill off the entire party by throwing in an anti-magic zone that nullifies magic weapons and take away any silver.

In my opinion 100% immunity to non-magical or silvered weapons was always a poor design choice and I'm glad they got rid of it. As GM I can still set up the rare encounter where a monster is difficult to kill by ordinary means if I want. It just wont be as binary as "you must use a magic or silvered weapon".

 

[jgsugden]

If the solution to low level characters options to effectively fight specific creatures is to ignore the guidance and expectations for the type of treasure they are expected to have then it's not a good solution. Nothing you've suggested "fixes" anything because it's always up to the GM to provide the required weapon.

Again, please read my responses if you're going to criticize them. My main argument is that you DO NOT NEED to provide those weapons. Yes, I pointed out to someone that you can give them the tool as part of the adventure as one way to move the story forward - but my initial suggestions had nothing to do with it. Your focus is on a side comment of mine, here, not my main argument.

Bury a creature with immunity under a mountain? Perfectly fine if they can get out. Throw them off a cliff? They just bounce at the bottom and get right up because they're unaffected by bludgeoning damage. The only solution for a martial type character to be effective is totally out of their control.

Again, this is not true and we can thank Hollywood for countless examples of how heroes defeat villains that they can't hurt with weapons. You can argue that your group was not allowed to be effective by a DM that negated their solutions, or that players didn't look for options outside of their wacking sticks ... but saying the ONLY SOLUTION is out of their control is incorrect. Across many DMs and in many groups I have personally seen a lot of creative problem solving where these abilities were used as intended by the designers.

It would be easy to set up a scenario where a 20th level champion fighter would have no chance of survival against a CR 1/2 Jackalwere intent on killing them. Take away the fighter's magical or silver weapon. Don't provide a method of escape, no pits they can be tossed down that permanently trap the creature. The Jackalwere will eventually come out victorious every single time. Give that same fighter a silvered dagger and combat is over in a single round. For that matter, kill off the entire party by throwing in an anti-magic zone that nullifies magic weapons and take away any silver.

Yes. And if I drop a volcano on a fighter they die every time as well. Nuclear bombs are also pretty much a sure fire kill. They're also lousy story telling and any DM that sets them up to just kill a player is ignoring most of the guidance in the DMG. Would you sit at that table? Where, as you note, a DM is contriving a way to slowly torture and kill a PC ...

... although I would argue that you're still avoiding creativity. You can keep contriving ways to counter the fighter moves, but a creative player can keep on coming up with them.

And your argument, by the way, is also an argument against allowing ranged weapons. If you put a fighter at the bottom of an unclimbable pit and give a kobold a sling and unlimited stones ... eventually the fighter dies. Should we remove all ranged weapons?

In my opinion 100% immunity to non-magical or silvered weapons was always a poor design choice and I'm glad they got rid of it. As GM I can still set up the rare encounter where a monster is difficult to kill by ordinary means if I want. It just wont be as binary as "you must use a magic or silvered weapon".

... binary. Yes or no. 1 or 0.

That is what you're missing here. It isn't binary. Again, this type of mechanic is an ENABLING mechanic that creates opportunities for stories. It creates a spectrum of potential situations primarily for low level PCs to struggle against and overcome without resorting to roll/damage/repeat solutions. It is dynamic - and can be used for great story telling.

Yes, we can house rule. I house ruled mechanics right back in. Over the past 6 months I have been using a mix of 2014, 2024 and hybrid versions of monsters. That is kind of a meaningless point. The question at hand that has been debated here is whether the mechanics are beneficial or detrimental ... and it is entirely non-opinion objective fact that the mechanic, when used as designed to be used, has enabled and resulted in MANY really great encounters, adventures and storylines.

We like to say things like, "You're entitled to your opinion" without really thinking about it whether it is an opinion ... which has eroded our sense of truth. We give the people the freedom to decide that fact is not fact, but instead that we have the freedom to decide whether the Earth is flat or whether people have traveled to the moon. That line of thinking is half the reason our world is so screwed up today. It enables people to ignore facts and stick to arguments that make no sense because their ego demands it.

Here, these mechanics ENABLED storytelling, encouraged inventive problem solving, and contributed to dynamic storytelling. They were not a tax as you were expected to deal with the monsters without 'paying the tax'. People could use the mechanics poorly, just as with any other mechanic in D&D, but they created a lot of good.

You can argue that they needed more support by giving DMS guidance to ensure new DMs did not use them without considering them. I've always been in support of the DMG actually providing guidance to DMs that was not there. I advocated in another thread that someone should run a DM university set of videos using D&D books, forums and threads as a syllabus to train DMs in different ways to improve their games. I would definitely think that these mechanics should be addressed as a lesson topic. However, that is not really a point about the mechanic specifically as there are countless other situations that are equally as dangerous if not used properly (such as fights near tall cliffs at low level, the dangers of ranged weapons I discuss above, certain combinations of abilities being near autokills (summon undead +poison), etc...)

I'll point you back to my prior posts. Consider them. They address your points. Be open to the idea that you missed an opportunity and consider how you might utilize the mechanics to tell a great story with players.

Good luck.

 

[Stormonu]

@jgsugden, you're coming across as forcing your playstyle on others. Some people do not see (nor want) the inability to stand against a foe as compatible with their style of play. They may simply consider it unfair as it is the choice of the DM to set up these sort of conflicts and the players may not feel (or trust) that warning or a viable workaround is given to them.

Personally, I've done several of the things you've mentioned (in a recent Ravenloft one-shot, the party found themselves on the run from hunting werewolves when they had no magic weapons, but after a bit they were able to reverse their fortune when they found a cache of magic/silver weapons).

Some people are open to this sort of situation. Others may resent it. Personally, I'm not in favor of the removal of BPS resistance/immunity but if I use 2024 I WILL be adding it back in for certain creatures. Other groups can choose to play them RAW, it makes no difference to me.

 

[SkidAce]

Yeah. And it's nice when there's tiers beyond that. Which is why I've got this "mad" idea to reintroduce +1, +2, +3 resistances.

You fight at the beginning. It's all good.
You encounter monsters that need +1 weapons. That's a challenge to overcome.
You finally get a consistent +1 solution. It's all good.
You use that solution for a while.
Then you encounter the monsters that need +2 weapons...

It doesn't have to be magic weapons - there are other abilities and conditions where you "tier" them so each one comes up as something you have to overcome and then that is solved, and then there's the next challenge.

Cheers!

I have thought that perhaps the +1, +2 of "magic" weapons is merely magically enhanced accuracy and damage (a valuable attribute to be sure), but that it does not affect resistances to type or material.*

I.e. A weapon would still need silver to affect jackalweres, even if it was a +1.




*the danger of bringing back the golfbag now arises...