D&D 5E Polls in Wizards Community D&D Next Blogs


log in or register to remove this ad

Halivar

First Post
What fascinated me was this poll option for "+1 or Better to Hit?":

  • Yes, but only as the 1st and 2nd edition rules.
  • Yes, but as the 3rd edition rules.

I would hope this could be something that could be modularized. As it seems now, they want a single mechanic to cover this.
 

delericho

Legend

No good options on this poll, unfortunately.

They should do three things with Damage Reduction, IMO:

1) With the exception of vampires and werewolves, they should remove DR entirely from all categories of monsters. If a monster is supposed to be extremely tough to kill, there's already a better mechanic for that - lots of hit points.

2) For unique, named monsters they should consider keeping DR (or, better, Vulnerability), but instead of having it keyed to one of five special materials (silver, cold iron, adamantine, magic, alignment) it should be tied to a unique named item/ritual/whatever. (Perhaps that demon lord is vulnerable to the sword of the paladin who beat him last time.)

Doing this eliminates the 'golf bag' mentality. In 3e/4e, players quickly reach a point where almost every encounter is against a creature with some resistance, but that that resistance can be bypassed with one of five materials. Under those circumstances, of course they're going to want a 'golf bag' of weapons to deal with it!

By restricting DR to unique, named individuals and to unique, named countermeasures you make it much more memorable - both the bad guy and the magic item have built-in flavour. Additionally, there ceases to be any reason for the 'golf bag', since the weapon that worked this time won't work next time. And, finally, it gives the PCs an interesting choice - do they quest to go get the unique magic item, or do they take on the monster without it at greater risk?

There is an exception to this:

3) Vampires and werewolves are special cases, because these are classic monsters with well-known and iconic vulnerabilities. (I think they're the only such iconic cases, but I may have forgotten some?) Here, I recommend taking a look at two recent films for inspiration:

In "Dog Soldiers", the werewolves are really tough, but they can be taken down using normal weapons. That is, they have lots of hit points. However, the soldiers also have a small number of one-shot silver weapons that are extremely effective. I would recommend modelling this by eliminating the concept of 'silvered' weapons entirely, and instead having silver weapons that, if used, quickly become useless (like magic ammunition in 3e). Oh, and give the werewolves a very significant Vulnerability to such weapons, of course!

In "From Dusk Till Dawn", the vampires are also extremely resistant to normal weapons. However, after that initial encounter the heroes then proceed to construct themselves a number of better weapons - they whittle stakes, bless holy water, improvise holy symbols, and the like. Having done this, they could effectively ignore the resistance for the rest of the film. In game terms, that is of course easily modelled - an easy-to-use ritual that can be cast during a short rest. That way, you get the initial 'shock' encounter of vampires that can't be killed, followed by a rest, and then on with the fun vampire-killing antics! (Plus, it means that groups don't have to carry lots of vampire-killing gear for that once-in-a-campaign adventure when they suddenly need it.)

Incidentally, Vulnerabilities are generally more satisfying that Damage Reduction, and simply giving a creature lots of hit points seems to be a better way of making a monster really tough (in general).

I think DR/Vulnerabilities can be a fun mechanic. But they should use it very sparingly, and make it count.
 

DEFCON 1

Legend
Supporter
I would hope this could be something that could be modularized. As it seems now, they want a single mechanic to cover this.

They probably are trying to find out if it needs to be modularized. If the results end up showing that 95% of the voters prefer one over the other, that's a pretty good indication that they could leave the other out without too much hue and cry.

The big thing to remember here is that they aren't going to put every iteration of every rule in the book... modular or not. Word count becomes prohibitive. So in some places, trimming will occur to some rules from the previous editions that just don't need to reappear (like AC going downwards for example). If the poll results end up with both choices being equal in popularity, that will tell them that this might be a place where adding the module is a good thing.
 

Anselyn

Explorer
By restricting DR to unique, named individuals and to unique, named countermeasures you make it much more memorable - both the bad guy and the magic item have built-in flavour. Additionally, there ceases to be any reason for the 'golf bag', since the weapon that worked this time won't work next time. And, finally, it gives the PCs an interesting choice - do they quest to go get the unique magic item, or do they take on the monster without it at greater risk?

I guess in the sense that the DM chooses or generates what the vulnerabilty is for these named memorable opponents? So, referencing the MM can't help the players know that they need the blessed crossbow bolt, for example.

I would support this for my style of play but can see that perhaps it should be an optional style of play. I guess that there's a substantial sub-set of players who would want to be able to use their game mastery, having memorised all the monsters and their weaknesses. Should they be allowed their golf bags?
 

Umbran

Mod Squad
Staff member
Supporter
3) Vampires and werewolves are special cases, because these are classic monsters with well-known and iconic vulnerabilities. (I think they're the only such iconic cases, but I may have forgotten some?)

Traditionally, fae creatures are usually vulnerable to "cold iron".
 

avin

First Post
"Flavor should be backed up by game rules." YES, YES, YES!

I'm surprised that so many voters have said no o0

As for DR, yes, there should be monsters with DR, but simple like that DR5/Cold Iron. Cold Iron or nothing or 5 RD. No more "better elements work as cold iron"...
 


LurkAway

First Post
"Flavor should be backed up by game rules." YES, YES, YES!

I'm surprised that so many voters have said no o0
I voted Yes, but I regretted that after I read the blurb later about dwarves and axes and thought the issue was more nuanced then a simple general yes or no.
 

Hassassin

First Post
I'm a bit torn on damage resistance.

I'd like to see flavorful vulnerabilities like silver (werewolves) and cold iron (fey), but I'm not sure DR is the best mechanic for these. Dragons and Elementals have vulnerabilities, where they take double damage, so maybe that would work for these cases.

OTOH, I think skeletons resisting (at least) piercing damage makes total sense.
 

Voidrunner's Codex

Remove ads

Top