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

[Chaltab]

Has it been pointed out that the one high level statblock we have, the ancient green, has no damage threshold?


Not against the idea but it doesn't seem to apply to dragons.

 

[Dausuul]

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.

A smart dragon has a lot of advantages it can exploit against a city, without needing any bespoke protection. An attack on a cloudy night, for instance -- the dragon soars high and unseen, picks a target, strafes it, and is gone before the archers can get in range. Panic and confusion would also serve it well. And, of course, medieval cities handle fire about as well as electronics handle a nice long bath.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Has it been pointed out that the one high level statblock we have, the ancient green, has no damage threshold?

Neither does the Stone Golem (CR 10), which seems like a missed opportunity because its an extremely simple mechanic to implement. I would have just given the Stone Golem 20 Hit Dice and Damage Threshold 10; maybe make it Vulnerable to Pick-axes. That way it has that invulnerable quality where some attacks are just bouncing off...and while you could argue that's what AC is for I think Damage Threshold adds that visceral "attacks are just bouncing off it" physicality for tough monsters.

Not against the idea but it doesn't seem to apply to dragons.

Agreed, which is a shame because it really suits dragons. Give the Green Dragon (which has 23 HD) Damage Threshold 11 and basic town guardsmen need a CRIT to potentially injure it. Then again maybe WotC are just assuming higher hit points (which the higher CR monsters also needed) will do the job.

 

[FrogReaver]

Well, I'm happy we didn't see damage thresholds become a major thing. Nothing worse than having your character do nothing... well maybe doing nearly nothing is worse psychologically.

 

[pukunui]

Well, I'm happy we didn't see damage thresholds become a major thing. Nothing worse than having your character do nothing... well maybe doing nearly nothing is worse psychologically.

Maybe it will only be titanic creatures like the tarrasque and kraken that get a damage threshold. Otherwise, why mention that creatures can have one as well as vehicles?

That said, I note the 2024 DMG states that a +4 is appropriate for a legendary magic item, yet none of the magic items later in the book have a +4. They’re still only go up to +3. I guess that just leaves the door open for the DM in case they want to include an item that grants a +4. (I certainly never will! I am reluctant to even hand out +1 items.)

 

[Sword of Spirit]

Maybe it will only be titanic creatures like the tarrasque and kraken that get a damage threshold. Otherwise, why mention that creatures can have one as well as vehicles?

That said, I note the 2024 DMG states that a +4 is appropriate for a legendary magic item, yet none of the magic items later in the book have a +4. They’re still only go up to +3. I guess that just leaves the door open for the DM in case they want to include an item that grants a +4. (I certainly never will! I am reluctant to even hand out +1 items.)

2014 also mentions +4 in that context, but there have never been any 5e +4 items to my knowledge.

 

[Maxperson]

It is easier to believe that a dagger can hurt a Dragon than it is to believe that a human is still fine after being stabbed by one 15 times.

A human isn't. Not by RAW anyway. RAW you don't even begin to be scratched or bruised until half hit points. Then it's scratches until you get stabbed once and put to 0.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Well, I'm happy we didn't see damage thresholds become a major thing. Nothing worse than having your character do nothing... well maybe doing nearly nothing is worse psychologically.

That would suggest you are also against high Armor Class, all energy immunity's, condition immunity's, spell immunity, etc.

Uncovering an enemy's weakness, weak spots or vulnerability to exploit should prove rewarding. Likewise expecting all your tactics should simply just work on every enemy sounds like complacency the GM should punish now and again.

 

[FrogReaver]

That would suggest you are also against high Armor Class, all energy immunity's, condition immunity's, spell immunity, etc.

Can you justify why you think that is?

Uncovering an enemy's weakness, weak spots or vulnerability to exploit should prove rewarding. Likewise expecting all your tactics should simply just work on every enemy sounds like complacency the GM should punish now and again.

I’m sorry, what tactic does a fighter have other than attacking?

 

[Upper_Krust]

That said, I note the 2024 DMG states that a +4 is appropriate for a legendary magic item, yet none of the magic items later in the book have a +4. They’re still only go up to +3. I guess that just leaves the door open for the DM in case they want to include an item that grants a +4. (I certainly never will! I am reluctant to even hand out +1 items.)

Given that a basic +3 bonus makes a weapon 'merely' Very Rare, infers a base +4 bonus would be Legendary.

Of course a bigger issue is that weapons with basic bonuses are generally rubbish for dealing damage in 5E which would be better served making each weapon '+' add another die (or two for Greatswords) equal to the weapon's base damage.