D&D (2024) The problem with weapon damage resistances.

[EzekielRaiden]

That's already how things are right now, with magic weapons being the weakness (or just magic in general).

No, it's not--it's the exact reverse, actually. Magic weapons currently are a universal key that opens every lock, no matter how hard it is to open the lock normally or how hard it is to bypass the lock without opening it. You have proposed an unbreakable universal lock, which requires one specific key, depending on the nature of the monster in question.

A universal key makes life easy for people wanting to open the lock--aka players. A universal and unbreakable lock makes things significantly more difficult for players. That is the core of my criticism here. Players are punished unless and until they discover the key to open the lock.

I have no problem with Vulnerability still existing. It's a great option for things like Skeletons!!

How can you have vulnerability if the target is resistant to all damage?

 

[Seramus]

No, it's not--it's the exact reverse, actually. Magic weapons currently are a universal key that opens every lock, no matter how hard it is to open the lock normally or how hard it is to bypass the lock without opening it. You have proposed an unbreakable universal lock, which requires one specific key, depending on the nature of the monster in question.

A universal key makes life easy for people wanting to open the lock--aka players. A universal and unbreakable lock makes things significantly more difficult for players. That is the core of my criticism here. Players are punished unless and until they discover the key to open the lock.

I consider magic weapons being a universal key to be a con, so that isn't a problem for me. I imagine some groups might rate that increase in difficulty as "significantly" more difficult, but I rate it as "slightly" more difficult assuming your players are the least bit interested in the thematics of the monsters they fight.

How can you have vulnerability if the target is resistant to all damage?

A skeleton is better represented by Vulnerability alone, instead of Resistance to damage until it's interrupted by a thematic weakness. I wouldn't use both on a skeleton.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I consider magic weapons being a universal key to be a con, so that isn't a problem for me. I imagine some groups might rate that increase in difficulty as "significantly" more difficult, but I rate it as "slightly" more difficult assuming your players are the least bit interested in the thematics of the monsters they fight.

That would be fair if this were the only means to achieve that end. It is not. As a result, you're going to have a lot of very frustrated casual players who don't understand why the vast majority of enemies need to be like trolls, where everything they do is heavily mitigated unless they acquire and use the one specific weakness of each and every such creature. Making all monsters that have resistance instead resist absolutely everything unless you unlock the ability to do normal damage for a turn would, 100% guaranteed, drive away more players than it pleases.

A skeleton is better represented by Vulnerability alone, instead of Resistance to damage until it's interrupted by a thematic weakness. I wouldn't use both on a skeleton.

Okay, well, your original presentation made it sound a lot more like everything that has resistance right now would instead be upgraded to resist all damage unless it got turned off. Skeletons were not an ideal example, as they have only an immunity rather than resistance, but consider the sheer number of things that have a resistance in 5e: hundreds of distinct creatures have some kind of resistance already, apparently more than 20% of all monsters yet published.

Turning this around: You are saying we should double the HP of every creature in the game that has resistance, and then let people find a way to double their own damage for a time if they happen to be able to find the right trick. Most folks are going to feel punished for not knowing which keys they need to use. They are not going to feel excited by the idea that any given threat might be made significantly harder just because they don't know how to pierce its resistance.

 

[Seramus]

That would be fair if this were the only means to achieve that end. It is not. As a result, you're going to have a lot of very frustrated casual players who don't understand why the vast majority of enemies need to be like trolls, where everything they do is heavily mitigated unless they acquire and use the one specific weakness of each and every such creature. Making all monsters that have resistance instead resist absolutely everything unless you unlock the ability to do normal damage for a turn would, 100% guaranteed, drive away more players than it pleases.

Okay, well, your original presentation made it sound a lot more like everything that has resistance right now would instead be upgraded to resist all damage unless it got turned off. Skeletons were not an ideal example, as they have only an immunity rather than resistance, but consider the sheer number of things that have a resistance in 5e: hundreds of distinct creatures have some kind of resistance already, apparently more than 20% of all monsters yet published.

I never suggested all monsters that have resistance instead resist absolutely everything. I think it should be judged on a monster by monster basis, and only assigned to monsters where such resistance would be highly thematic or appropriate to the lore. In other cases, vulnerability is the most appropriate tool to use. And in some, nothing at all.

Turning this around: You are saying we should double the HP of every creature in the game that has resistance, and then let people find a way to double their own damage for a time if they happen to be able to find the right trick. Most folks are going to feel punished for not knowing which keys they need to use. They are not going to feel excited by the idea that any given threat might be made significantly harder just because they don't know how to pierce its resistance.

If your players are going to feel PUNISHED because they have to find some silver for a werewolf, or some sunlight for a wraith, or some cold iron for an archfey, then I don't want them anywhere near my table. Gods forbid they ever fight a Lich, or have to find a McGuffin to defeat a BBEG. Full scale rebellion, no doubt!

 

[UngeheuerLich]

If your players are going to feel PUNISHED because they have to find some silver for a werewolf, or some sunlight for a wraith, or some cold iron for an archfey, then I don't want them anywhere near my table. Gods forbid they ever fight a Lich, or have to find a McGuffin to defeat a BBEG. Full scale rebellion, no doubt!

The problem always is that such things sound more fun in theory than in application. There is also the problem with in and out game knowledge. Yes, I know godd players can seperate and yada yada, but reality is, if you have fireball and lightning bolt and face something vulnerable to lightning, good players also find reasons why in that situation using ligntning bolt was the correct choice because of the setup of combat, not because of the vulnerability.
And even if there is no such reason, how should you decide? By choice using the wrong spell? Roll a die, which spell to use?

So vulnerability and resitances are either widely known in the world on a common monster (trolls are vulnerable to fire and acid as told in many tales (history or nature check DC 5 to 10), or it is a rare monster players only face once in their career. Or the DM just switches up resistance sometimes to confuse players, when it boils down to either luck or a puzzle to be solved.

So in the end, it is only fun if the players are attacked, forced back because they can't really win and then aquire knowledge to defeat the monster in the end.

 

[James Gasik]

Since there's no set way for player characters to know what monster abilities are, it is a problem when you create monsters that are only vulnerable to specific tactics. I'm reminded of the old D&D golems, where they were flat out immune to magic, save for a specific list of spells.

Is your Wizard going to know what those spells are? Will they even have them prepared should you come across a clay golem? "What do you mean I need a magical bludgeoning weapon to even hurt it?"

I sure as the heck want weapon choices to matter more, but there's a flipside. What do you do when you encounter a werewolf and you don't have silver? You can't run from the thing- it's probably faster than you. A non-magical character in this position has NO options.

And you know, those are the guys who are going to interact with a system supporting weapon choices the most.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

If your players are going to feel PUNISHED because they have to find some silver for a werewolf, or some sunlight for a wraith, or some cold iron for an archfey, then I don't want them anywhere near my table. Gods forbid they ever fight a Lich, or have to find a McGuffin to defeat a BBEG. Full scale rebellion, no doubt!

How is that not what it is, objectively?

You are penalizing--punishing--all forms of damage unless and until the key to unlock normal damage output is found. That's literally what is happening here. You paint it as some kind of horrible affront to view it this way, but that's objectively what is going on. What other purpose is there for "literally everything you do is half wasted unless you find the One Weird Trick first"? It penalizes any action which does not exploit the key first.

 

[Deset Gled]

Since there's no set way for player characters to know what monster abilities are, it is a problem when you create monsters that are only vulnerable to specific tactics. I'm reminded of the old D&D golems, where they were flat out immune to magic, save for a specific list of spells.

...

I sure as the heck want weapon choices to matter more, but there's a flipside. What do you do when you encounter a werewolf and you don't have silver? You can't run from the thing- it's probably faster than you. A non-magical character in this position has NO options.

Why is there no way for characters to learn about monsters? Why is retreating impossible? These are both common in my experience.

 

[James Gasik]

Oh well, first, 5e doesn't have built in monster knowledge mechanics. And as a result, I've played at several tables that simply don't allow you know these things.

Second, how do you retreat from a werewolf trying to kill you? If I'm in melee range with the thing, most races move at 30 feet. I can disengage without being hit again and move 30 feet. Or dash and take a free hit to move 60 feet.

In wolf form, the werewolf moves at 40 feet. If it wants to chase me, I can't get out of combat with it unless the DM rules that I can (I come up with a trick).

My only hope is that someone has a spell that will slow the creature down.

 

[Seramus]

How is that not what it is, objectively?

You are penalizing--punishing--all forms of damage unless and until the key to unlock normal damage output is found. That's literally what is happening here. You paint it as some kind of horrible affront to view it this way, but that's objectively what is going on. What other purpose is there for "literally everything you do is half wasted unless you find the One Weird Trick first"? It penalizes any action which does not exploit the key first.

I think the real issue is our vastly different perspective on how "punishing" such a change would be. Unless I am misunderstanding your position, you seem to think it would be a heinous slog. I think it would be a mild inconvenience that is more than worth the trade-off in making certain monster encounters more iconic and memorable. I don't objectively know which of our perspectives is right, but I see a molehill where you see a mountain. So we're essentially talking past each other.