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

[Tales and Chronicles]

With the hit point bloat of 5e, I dont thing making more monsters vulnerable to something would be all that bad. Anyway, making, say, shapeshifter Vulnerable to silvered weapons does not mean those weapon would deal double damage, it just means that the Vulnerability cancel the Resistance, making it null.

I'd personally go with resistance to physical damages from weapon under a certain rarity.
As for spells, I wish more monsters were immune to spells under a certain level, like the Rakshasa.

 

[billd91]

Also, most of the cases where you have resistance to "Bludgeoning, Piercing, and Slashing from Nonmagical Attacks that aren't Silvered" or the equivalent aren't meant to be creatures that are extra vulnerable to silver attacks. I'm not sure it was a thing in AD&D, but I think the silver thing with devils in particular was added in 3.5e, where low-level devils had DR penetrated by "silver or good" weapons, mid-level just had "good", and high-level ones needed "silver and good" weapons. Same thing with demons and cold iron. I think the only large-scale monster type where an actual vulnerability would be appropriate are fey, who are supposed to shun and fear cold iron.

The ability to damage devils with silver (and demons with iron) dated at least back to AD&D. A lot of people probably missed it but there's a table at the beginning of the 1e Monster Manual sections on devils (and demons) that lists their general characteristics including resistances and vulnerabilities. And silver weapons do full damage.

 

[Jer]

I'm pretty sure I've seen one developer mention a few years back (might have been Mearls, but I'm not sure) that the reason there are so few vulnerabilities is that they make things too easy. Doubling damage is much too strong to use other than in very special circumstances.

I like how 13th age approaches vulnerability - instead of doubling damage if you use a weapon of the appropriate type, the crit range is extended by 2. So if you have a creature that is vulnerable to fire and you use your flaming broadsword and you normally crit on a 20, you'd crit on an 18+ instead. You get the feel that the creature is vulnerable to the weapon without the "too good for the math" result that you get of doubled damage with every hit.

 

[payn]

4e already did this. Bringing Bludgeoning, Piercing, and Slashing back for 5e was a symbolic gesture to appease the anti-4e crowd, and skeletons were the token “see? We promise this will actually matter sometimes!” monster. There are a few others, but they all exist solely to gesture at the design space weapon damage types could open up, so the folks who want that complexity don’t get too upset by the fact that the design space isn’t really utilized anywhere else. Worked well enough for the playtest, but I wouldn’t be surprised to see it gone next edition.

This is a very condescending take. Its not hard to imagine that some folks enjoy damage types and resistances in the game. Maybe, the designers didn't go too into the design space as a gesture towards folks who dislike it not being able to handle its return?

 

[Ovinomancer]

This is a very condescending take. Its not hard to imagine that some folks enjoy damage types and resistances in the game. Maybe, the designers didn't go too into the design space as a gesture towards folks who dislike it not being able to handle its return?

What do you think @Charlaquin said, because I don't see a lot of daylight between you two here.

 

[Ovinomancer]

While reading up on all the changes to monsters for the 5.5 edition, or whatever they are going to call it, it occurred to me that the default way that 5e handles monsters who have a weakness to special material weapons, like devils and their aversion to silver, isn't handled to the best of the systems ability.

Currently a Bone Devil has resistances to Bludgeoning, Piercing, and Slashing from Nonmagical Attacks that aren't Silvered. Meaning they take normal damage from either silver or magical weapons. Which is less of a weakness, and more of a "You must be this tall to ride" sign that allows the PCs to use platform shoes. It also has the unfortunate side effect of a magical weapon being a one stop shop for all your resistance and often times immunity needs. While this is nice from a balance perspective due to simplicity, it is also boring as heck because there is no reward for using a silvered weapon on top of or instead of a magical weapon, totally wasting the design space.

In another famous example, the Werewolf, they tried to give immunity to nonmangical and nonsilvered weapon damage. But that proved to be less than desirable as it only served to lock mundane characters out of being effective for the fight, and let casters destroy them with cantrips without any considerable changes at all. The designer response to this was the monster called the Loup Garou, which cannot be killed without silvered weapons (or at least some way to prevent healing) due to their regeneration ability. Needless to say, this is not a practical solution outside of heavily horror games, and even then it can be cheesed by using a simple cantrip (Chill Touch) or a single silvered weapon strike after the party unloads their normal routine.

My solution to this problem is admittedly a bit more complex in terms of wording that WotC may be initially comfortable with, but it is simple enough in play: Give these enemies Resistance and Vulnerability to Silvered weapons. Vulnerability and Resistance cancel each other out, which gives normal damage. Interestingly enough WotC future proofed themselves this time, as multiple resistances don't stack, so adding another resistance isn't going to make monsters harder. Furthermore Vulnerability is a near vestigial mechanic in this edition, with only 100 out of the 2000+ stat blocks for monsters using the mechanic, and honestly players love when they hit a Vulnerability, so it should be used more.

My proposed changes look like this:

A Bone Devil would now have resistances to Bludgeoning, Piercing, and Slashing from Nonmagical Attacks (deleting the part about Silvered weapons). But also Vulnerability to attacks from Silvered weapons. Because a resistance and a Vulnerability cancel each other out, the new damage results would be: x1/2 for normal weapons, x1 for silver or magic weapons, and x2 for silver and magic weapons. This allows for more tiers of readiness.

• The PCs have to duke it out with their resisted weapons.
• The PC's use consumables or other resources (like the Magic Weapon spell) to normalize their damage.
• The PC's use a bit of prep work to get silvered weapons (or just luckily have a magic weapon on hand) for normal damage without using consumables.
• The PC's use consumables in conjunction with their prep work to actually exploit the vulnerability.
• The PC's get special magic and silvered weapons designed for the purposes of slaying such creatures.

The werewolf could keep their immunities (though there is an argument against that), with the the Silver Vulnerability added to that. The trick here is the addition of a resistance to nonmagical weapons on top of their immunity to nonmagical and nonsilvered weapons. At first glance this seems redundant, but the two categories are actually different. Allowing us to use most of the same clever mechanics from the Bone Devil. In summery, a normal weapon is totally ignored. A silvered weapon is both resisted and vulnerable which evens out. A magic weapon deals normal damage. And once again a magic silvered weapon is a true weakness.

Don't have a lot of time, but I'm not sure there is design space available here once you plug back into the game. By this I mean ho totals are a massive factor in the CR and encounter balance maths and this is recommending increasing design that adjusts those totals in more complex ways but isn't looking at what that means downstream for the encounters math. Yes, it's clever, but it's clever in isolation.

 

[Charlaquin]

This is a very condescending take. Its not hard to imagine that some folks enjoy damage types and resistances in the game.

I know for a fact that some folks do. I like them myself, when properly utilized.

Maybe, the designers didn't go too into the design space as a gesture towards folks who dislike it not being able to handle its return?

Six of one, half a dozen of the other. Point is, 5e lacks both the simplicity of a system that doesn’t differentiate weapon damage types and the depth of one that does, because WotC tried to please everyone instead of making a decision and committing to it.

 

[Deset Gled]

This was a big discussion in the 3.0e to 3.5e update. In 3.0 you needed a specific material to overcome resistance, in 3.5 a magical weapon overcame all material resistances.

The main explanation I remember hearing from the designers was that material resistances just resulted in a golf bag of different weapons. Players would have their silver weapon, their cold iron weapon, their adamantine weapon, etc. This was considered not ideal for multiple reasons: it increases reliance on items instead of abilities, it prevents players from relying on a favored weapon, it makes players more likely lug around a mobile arsenal of weapons, etc.

Personally, I like the idea of going back to multiple resistances having more meaning, but I don't think it fits in with the zeitgeist of 5e. I would embrace the added crunch, but I would much rather see a deeper design delve into other areas first.

Edit: Staffan corrected my edition misnumbering, but I'm leaving it unchanged here.

 

[Staffan]

I do like the way Pathfinder 2 does it better, where resistances and vulnerabilities are fixed numbers and generally scaled to the creature's level (so the 4th level Abrikandilu has weakness 5 vs good and cold iron, while the 20th level Balor has 20). This means that even lower-damage abilities that trigger weaknesses can be devastating to these creatures. For example, holy water deals 1d6 good damage to undead and fiends, plus 1 point of splash damage even on a miss. 1d6 is nothing in PF2 even at mid-levels, but 1d6+10 against a mid-level demon's weakness is nothing to sneeze at. Also, the guidelines for creating creatures say that creatures with weaknesses should have more hp, so that without the ability to trigger them they'll be harder than a baseline creature, but easier with the ability.

 

[Quickleaf]

I think your changes are just fine, and better than RAW. Thumbs up.

Increasingly, I've been trying to get into the story of what's going on with a specific monster's resistances, and then use that story to create more nuanced resistances/vulnerabilities (including sometimes a new trait) that don't just apply to weapons but also to some spells.

To use your bone devil example, what is this particular devil resistant to? And why?

They are skeletal, with a skin stretched across their frame.
They fly on fairly delicate insectile wings.
They are envious of their superiors / mightier devils.

So I might come up with something like...

Damage Vulnerabilities. Bludgeoning from silvered weapons.

Envy Weakness (replaces damage resistances & Magic Resistance). The bone devil has resistance to all damage and advantage to its saving throws against magic, unless it is consumed by envy for another creature. While consumed by envy it does not benefit from its resistance to all damage and advantage to saving throws against magic.

Silver Downfall. When the bone devil takes damage from a silvered weapon or a spell consuming at least 100 gp worth of silver as a component, it cannot fly until the end of its next turn. If it is already flying, it is forced to descend 40 feet. If it is higher than 40 feet above the ground, it falls the remainder of the distance.