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

James Gasik · Saturday at 4:06 PM

SkidAce said:
What level did they get it?*

*I've never played AL, so am curious

I think it was like 7 or 8. Ironically, the very next session (Storm King's Thunder), I picked up the Opal of the Ild Rune, which allowed me to turn my old non-magic bow into one that did +1d6 fire damage (with archery fighting style and a 20 Dex, my bonus to hit was kind of ridiculous so I didn't need the +1 to hit, I just wanted to finally not be nerfed to the ground by "resistant to non-magical b/p/s damage"). I still had the dang thing when I stopped playing at the FLGS after level 12.

James Gasik · Saturday at 4:11 PM

Maxperson said:
The game is balanced around no magic items, though. The monsters are balanced around PC abilities gained by their races and classes. Those "annoying" low CR creatures become easier and effectively even lower CR if the party is armed with magic swords.

And yes, I've read Xanathar's. It doesn't assume magic weapons will be had. Just minor/major and random rolls(DMG) or selection(Xanathar's).

Further, since the game doesn't assume any particular items are had by PCs, or balance encounters around any magic items at all, the DMG even offers up advice for no magic campaigns.

DMs need to be careful with how many magic weapons they hand out, or else throw twice as many "resistant" creatures at parties armed with magic weapons.

This is what I was referring to with Xanathar's- sidebar on page 136:

Note the use of the words "necessary" and "generous" depending on group composition.

Maxperson · Saturday at 4:12 PM

James Gasik said:
I think it was like 7 or 8. Ironically, the very next session (Storm King's Thunder), I picked up the Opal of the Ild Rune, which allowed me to turn my old non-magic bow into one that did +1d6 fire damage (with archery fighting style and a 20 Dex, my bonus to hit was kind of ridiculous so I didn't need the +1 to hit, I just wanted to finally not be nerfed to the ground by "resistant to non-magical b/p/s damage"). I still had the dang thing when I stopped playing at the FLGS after level 12.

That's just it. You weren't nerfed. Resistance is the norm and magic weapons are a bonus. You seem to be viewing magic weapons as the norm, and not having one as being nerfed, which isn't the 5e design.

Maxperson · Saturday at 4:16 PM

James Gasik said:
This is what I was referring to with Xanathar's- sidebar on page 136:

View attachment 403578
Note the use of the words "necessary" and "generous" depending on group composition.

I agree with that with regard to immune monsters, but not with resistant ones.

That sidebar contradicts what the designers have told us about 5e design. It cannot be true that a party of non-casters will have trouble with resistant monsters AND that the game is balanced with only PC abilities in mind with no magic items being assumed to be present. Unless they are really, really, REALLY bad at design and screwed it up terribly.

My experience DMing a group of weapon users was that resistant monsters were a challenge as expected when they didn't have magic weapons, and not a challenge at all when they did. Based on my personal experience with that situation, I think the Xanathar's sidebar is wrong(outside of total immunity).

Hell, that sidebar contradicts itself with the beginning talking about monsters being built without characters needing magic items, and then saying later on that they might need them.

James Gasik · Saturday at 4:32 PM

Maxperson said:
That's just it. You weren't nerfed. Resistance is the norm and magic weapons are a bonus. You seem to be viewing magic weapons as the norm, and not having one as being nerfed, which isn't the 5e design.

Well, when everyone else had a magic weapon and I didn't, yes, I certainly felt nerfed, lol. Most characters could get their first magic weapon in AL in the first 5 levels. In fact, I could have had one, but it turns out the Oathbow given out in the mod can't be a shortbow, which was less than ideal for a Halfling.

If I'd known how hard it would be to get a shortbow at the time, I would have taken the darned thing anyways, lol.

Your stance seems to be that monsters are balanced by their resistances at all CR's, and I'm not sure that's true. A Fire Giant at CR 9 has AC 18 and 162 hit points. A Glabrezu has AC 17 and 189 hit points- but if you're forced to fight one with non-magic weapons or spells that deal fire/cold/lightning damage (you know, most of the good damaging spells) it basically has 378 hit points, which is abjectly ridiculous. Oh and it's immune to poison, and magic resistant on top of that.

I mean yeah, the fire giant is flat out immune to fire and it's vulnerability to cold doesn't quite make up for that, but it's still way easier to take down.

James Gasik · Saturday at 4:35 PM

Maxperson said:
I agree with that with regard to immune monsters, but not with resistant ones.

That sidebar contradicts what the designers have told us about 5e design. It cannot be true that a party of non-casters will have trouble with resistant monsters AND that the game is balanced with only PC abilities in mind with no magic items being assumed to be present. Unless they are really, really, REALLY bad at design and screwed it up terribly.

My experience DMing a group of weapon users was that resistant monsters were a challenge as expected when they didn't have magic weapons, and not a challenge at all when they did. Based on my personal experience with that situation, I think the Xanathar's sidebar is wrong(outside of total immunity).

Hell, that sidebar contradicts itself with the beginning talking about monsters being built without characters needing magic items, and then saying later on that they might need them.

Contradiction or no, that doesn't mean it's not something they've said about magic weapons. The way I understand it, the game's basic math doesn't require one to have a +1 sword at level x to determine if they can hit enemies. The quality of being able to bypass monster resistances in order to kill the thing in a timely manner is a completely different matter.

nevin · Saturday at 4:43 PM

jgsugden said:
Again, having the rules enables their use. Excluding the rules makes it so that it is not an option.

This is not a playstyle option. It is a play availability.

As already addressed - you can houserule all you want in either direction, but building the option into the game without requiring houseruling makes it an available supported option while excluding it ... it leaves the game lesser for all the reasons stated above.

Going back to my prior comparison: Should they take ranged combat out of the game? All ranged abilities? Some PCs do not have ranged weapons. Isn't the game going to be better if we take ranged abilities out of the game because those PCs do not have a way to deal with a foe at range? Of course not.

This was a mechanic designed to open up story options. It enables certain ways the game can work. Removing it just diminishes the options. Nothing forces a DM to use the option, although I will argue they are missing out if they never experience it in the way I, and the people I've played with have experienced. However, excluding it from the game diminishes the game as written.

This is one of those things that really isn't about opinion. It is as simple as math - more or less. You have more options with it - less without it. You can say you feel entitled to think 5 is more than 6 ... but it never will be.

I think you have missed the point that the game has had so many houseruled playstyles over the years that the devs probably intentionally avoid many of the "terrible" things people rant about online. From the sales perseptive it's better to leave it out and let the individual modify the game themselves. People even modify monopoly rules, should they start going back and adding explicit options for those things? The question for WOTC and HASBRO is always going to be is this rule you demand be added going to turn off or on more people to the game. Almost anyone passionate enough to post on an internet forum will simply houserule in thier own direction and therefore are not even people they worry about. (IMO).

Maxperson · Saturday at 4:46 PM

James Gasik said:
Contradiction or no, that doesn't mean it's not something they've said about magic weapons. The way I understand it, the game's basic math doesn't require one to have a +1 sword at level x to determine if they can hit enemies. The quality of being able to bypass monster resistances in order to kill the thing in a timely manner is a completely different matter.

The 5e DMG doesn't even list resistance as big enough deal to modify CR. I guess we will have to agree to disagree with how big of a deal it is. As I said, in my experience it was enough to make a creature an appropriate CR encounter unless the part had magic weapons, then they blew through the encounter like butter.

Maxperson · Saturday at 4:54 PM

James Gasik said:
Well, when everyone else had a magic weapon and I didn't, yes, I certainly felt nerfed, lol. Most characters could get their first magic weapon in AL in the first 5 levels. In fact, I could have had one, but it turns out the Oathbow given out in the mod can't be a shortbow, which was less than ideal for a Halfling.

That's fair. If everyone is getting them but you, that's not right. Next time just argue that a shortbow is a halfling longbow.

James Gasik said:
Your stance seems to be that monsters are balanced by their resistances at all CR's, and I'm not sure that's true. A Fire Giant at CR 9 has AC 18 and 162 hit points. A Glabrezu has AC 17 and 189 hit points- but if you're forced to fight one with non-magic weapons or spells that deal fire/cold/lightning damage (you know, most of the good damaging spells) it basically has 378 hit points, which is abjectly ridiculous. Oh and it's immune to poison, and magic resistant on top of that.

I mean yeah, the fire giant is flat out immune to fire and it's vulnerability to cold doesn't quite make up for that, but it's still way easier to take down.

There's more to it than that. The fire giant has 2 attacks at +11 that deal 6d6+7 damage, while the glabrezu has 2 at +9 for 2d10+5,and 2 at +9 for 2d4+2. The giant is going to hit more often for significantly more damage. The pincers do have a grapple, but that ties up the grappler as well, so it's not fantastic. The giant also has a ranged attack that does 4d10+7. The glabrezu some spells, including confusion and power word stun 1xday.

Those seem pretty fairly balanced to me. Much more damage and no resistance, vs. much less damage and resistance.

mellored · Saturday at 7:30 PM

Maxperson said:
That's why I liked grades of magic weapons being needed to hit. Maybe you had a +2 sword in 2e, but if you ran up against an iron golem that needed a +3 or better weapon in order to damage it, you weren't doing anything.

Ah.. that makes a bit more sense.

Still don't like gating by item, but it would work better that way.

Maxperson said:
Between different grades of weapon enchantments needed and special materials, fights were more interesting, often resulting in fight avoidance, which I rarely see these days.

How did they avoid fights?
Was there a way to run from a fight if you got over your head? Or was scouting assumed? Or did you just assume monsters never chased you? Or...?

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

James Gasik

We don't talk about Pun-Pun

James Gasik

We don't talk about Pun-Pun

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus

James Gasik

We don't talk about Pun-Pun

James Gasik

We don't talk about Pun-Pun

nevin

Hero

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus

mellored

Legend

Similar Threads