D&D (2024) Damage Threshold, the new "need a magic weapon"?

I think it is opening a pandora box.
People are already complaining about encounter balance, and sometime combat turn being too long.
If we add rules to manage an additional warband under the control of the party it will add more imbalance and more time to combat.
You can resolve it in less than ten seconds with the Mob Attack rules in the DMG
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Yes. This seems to make the basic magic weapons interesting and viable again.

In AD&D, weapons went up to +5 (even +6) and the hit points were about 50% less overall than 5E, which caps the weapon bonuses at +3. The damage is just rubbish.

So weapons are taking a massive power drop; which is why in almost every campaign I have played in, martial characters gravitate to weapons that deal extra damage (like flame-tongue swords and so forth).



Yes, although a +5 weapon would likely be a 5-dimensional Artifact, so not something even a Greater God like Zeus would have, it would be something maybe an Outer God would have.



Double the dice.



The best fit I arrived at was to make the extra dice of the energy type. Having half the damage as the energy type works best, but gets awkward when its 3 dice.

So a +2 Flametongue longsword deals 1d8 slashing + 2d8 fire. A Flametongue Greatsword deals 2d6 Slashing and 4d6 fire.

This might seem weaker than a +3 longsword dealing 3d8 slashing, but epic characters and immortals might have ways to maximize or even double energy damage (though that's all godly stuff).

While we are on the subject (not to derail the OP); the appropriate enemies are Vulnerable to 'Slayer' weapons (ie. Dragons are Vulnerable to damage from Dragon-slaying weapons) and Sharpness/Vorpal weapons deal maximum damage (So a +1 Greatsword of Sharpness deals 24 damage while +3 Vorpal Longsword deals 32 damage, etc).
I feel like this system would synergize well with DR or DT because a magical dagger, instead of 1d4+1 does 2d4. Paired with stat bonus to damage, you can more likely get through it.

Then get rid of DR piercing/magical. Instead of letting magical weapons bypass it, their innate extra damage allows you to get through it easier.

I always disliked DR/magical because, at high level, everyone has magical weapons which made the resistance of the creature meaningless.

So a werewolf could have Damage resistance/silver. Magical weapons are more effective (average 2d8+3 (assuming 16str) halved is 6) , silver weapons bypass it completely(8 damage) and magical silver are most effective(12 damage). So, finding silver is still attractive.
 

I feel like this system would synergize well with DR or DT because a magical dagger, instead of 1d4+1 does 2d4. Paired with stat bonus to damage, you can more likely get through it.

Then get rid of DR piercing/magical. Instead of letting magical weapons bypass it, their innate extra damage allows you to get through it easier.

I always disliked DR/magical because, at high level, everyone has magical weapons which made the resistance of the creature meaningless.

So a werewolf could have Damage resistance/silver. Magical weapons are more effective (average 2d8+3 (assuming 16str) halved is 6) , silver weapons bypass it completely(8 damage) and magical silver are most effective(12 damage). So, finding silver is still attractive.

Instead just give Werewolves Damage Threshold 5 (or whatever half their Hit Dice is) but make them Vulnerable to Silver-edged/plated weapons.

Do the same with devils, demons, fey and their susceptibilities.
 
Last edited:


EzekielRaiden

Follower of the Way
I speculate that this is the new 5.5 "you need a magic weapon or a spell to hurt this powerful monster" rule.
It's similar, but not the same in a very important (and positive, for once!) way. More below.

This damage threshold of 10 (for an example) can easily be defeated by tier 2 heroes! Now, weak attacks like cantrips may not be reliable,
Cantrips are unlikely to be affected unless the characters themselves are weak. A 10 damage threshold would be pretty vicious for my current party...except me and our Barbarian, because the two of us dish out pretty hefty hits. As a Warlock, I'm doing 3d6+5 on a melee hit (greatsword pact weapon + 1d6 invocation bonus + 20 Cha) and 1d10+5 via EB+AB. More than half my EB hits will get through, but it'd still be rough to lose 4/10 of successful non-crit hits, since it's pretty unlikely to roll only 2, 3, or 4 on 2d10 if it crits. Essentially all (anything but the two lowest possible results) of my melee attacks will go through.

But our Monk? Yeah this would kinda suck for them. They'd probably need a +1 weapon just to break even on dealing damage. Low-damage-dice characters like Monks, dual-wielders, and Rogues are likely to be unhappy about facing this sort of thing.

Thing is...other cantrips aren't gonna be as negatively affected, because they're all-or-nothing stuff. Fire bolt is 2d10 or nothing (and can crit!), and most other strong offense cantrips are like that too. Certainly by tier 3, a damage threshold of 10 becomes pretty plausible for most cantrip hits, and essentially all spells of 3rd level or higher.

Am I correct in predicting this?
I think you are correct, but only technically, not productively. See, there's a key difference: you aren't guaranteed to get a magic weapon. You are guaranteed to get more feats/stats and/or class features that increase your damage. Hence, a damage threshold is less inherently punishing than requiring magic weapons (which, itself, is less onerous than requiring specific weapons e.g. only silver, only cold iron, etc.)

BUT--and this is the big but!--the damage threshold can scale while those other things mostly don't. (IIRC some editions may have required specific +N numbers or else do not pass go, do not collect $200? But I don't remember.) A threshold of, say, 8 would still be pretty rough for even 5th level characters (expected +4 modifier means you must roll at least 4 on your damage dice, so d6 weapons only have a 50% chance of actually dealing damage even when you hit!) A threshold of 15 would be crippling for nearly everyone even at very high levels because most weapons don't deal d10/d12/2d6 damage, and even for those that do that's an incredibly high bar for anyone to pass, even magic-users.

If I'm wrong, would it be a nice house rule? It would favor "a few big hits" vs the "many small hits" type of martials...
I think it has good chance to be helpful, but one must be very very careful not to over-use it. 5e is kind of replete with over-using rules (see: advantage) to its detriment, so this sort of thing should only be used where it's really warranted, and should be kept to pretty conservative numbers. As noted, 15 is crippling to nearly anyone (e.g. that makes EB+AB essentially useless, as I could only deal damage if dealing maximum damage, so only 1/10th of my non-crit hits actually land.) 8 is good for, as you say, making a "heroic"-scale monster, where it shrugs off the blows of most mortals. That is, assuming a shortbow and a +0 damage modifier, that means zero non-crits can make it through, and less than half of crits will make it through too. Even a longbow only does damage if you roll maximum, so only 1/8th of non-crit hits do anything, and only 2/3 (67%) of crits will do any damage either, again assuming a +0 damage modifier.

Another option could be a defeasible damage threshold, like how zombies don't get their "I survived a lethal blow" thing if they take radiant damage (or a crit). That way, ordinary arrows are useless, but specific damage types, magic weapons, or specific trigger conditions can make it much more vulnerable. This would likewise emphasize a heroic tone, but rather more a trickster or guileful hero rather than a mighty-thews hero.
 


Gorck

Prince of Dorkness
Am I the one thinking, if an Adult Red Dragon attempts a flyby attack against a city with 100 trained crossbow men locked and loaded, then that’s the dragon’s own poor decision making?
 

Am I the one thinking, if an Adult Red Dragon attempts a flyby attack against a city with 100 trained crossbow men locked and loaded, then that’s the dragon’s own poor decision making?
Probably not, but it also is not an uncommon preference to have dragons to be something that can lay waste of armies with ease and feasibly threaten cities.

3908df4219247795daa089eea40f2970154f6724.gifv


Also, hundred archers isn't even a lot. Medieval armies routinely had way more.
 

ECMO3

Legend
Probably not, but it also is not an uncommon preference to have dragons to be something that can lay waste of armies with ease and feasibly threaten cities.

3908df4219247795daa089eea40f2970154f6724.gifv


Also, hundred archers isn't even a lot. Medieval armies routinely had way more.

Well 100 crossbowmen are going to do aroind 50 damage to the dragon, so SOME damage but not a lot. Now if said Dragon attacks a city of ten thousands like waterdeep, they probably should not survive.
 


Remove ads

Top