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

[Charlaquin]

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.

How bizarre. Isn’t encouraging players to have different weapons for different situations and preventing over reliance on a singles favored weapon the point of material resistances (and weapon damage type resistances, for that matter)?

 

[Staffan]

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.

It was the other way around. In 3.0, the scale of weapon awesomeness went: various materials, +1, +2, +3, +4, and +5 (I think bonuses above +3 were pretty rare), and resistances were usually pretty high. 10 was a low resistance, and I remember seeing things like DR 50/+3 which is essentially the same as immunity.

3.5 lowered the resistances so 15 was considered very high, but presented materials (as well as alignment) as separate from "magic" (which in turn is no longer separated by plusses, so a +4 and a +1 weapon are equally good at penetrating DR except for the 3 points of damage extra the +4 weapon does). The idea here was that even if you didn't have the right weapon, the DR would be low enough that it would be a speed bump and not a wall. This is what gets you the "golfbag" warrior – a concept I personally like where a professional warrior would use different weapons for different foes ("the right tool for the job"), but I recognize that many didn't like it. Then you get Pathfinder 1 which adds in the concept that certain pluses count as different materials as well.

 

[Deset Gled]

It was the other way around. In 3.0, the scale of weapon awesomeness went: various materials, +1, +2, +3, +4, and +5 (I think bonuses above +3 were pretty rare), and resistances were usually pretty high. 10 was a low resistance, and I remember seeing things like DR 50/+3 which is essentially the same as immunity.

3.5 lowered the resistances so 15 was considered very high, but presented materials (as well as alignment) as separate from "magic" (which in turn is no longer separated by plusses, so a +4 and a +1 weapon are equally good at penetrating DR except for the 3 points of damage extra the +4 weapon does). The idea here was that even if you didn't have the right weapon, the DR would be low enough that it would be a speed bump and not a wall. This is what gets you the "golfbag" warrior – a concept I personally like where a professional warrior would use different weapons for different foes ("the right tool for the job"), but I recognize that many didn't like it. Then you get Pathfinder 1 which adds in the concept that certain pluses count as different materials as well.

Yes! I had it backwards. That's what I get for posting without enough caffeine.

 

[Staffan]

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.

One of the cooler examples of this I saw in 3.5e was the adventure Shadows of the Last War. In that adventure, you will encounter a village that was subjected to some form of magical experiment during the war, killing the inhabitants and fusing them with glass while raising them as undead. As a result, they have DR 5/bludgeoning until they reach half their hit points, at which time their glass shells crack and they instead revert to the normal zombie DR of 5/slashing.

 

[Staffan]

Yes! I had it backwards. That's what I get for posting without enough caffeine.

One should always make sure not to have too much blood in one's caffeine system.

 

[Deset Gled]

How bizarre. Isn’t encouraging players to have different weapons for different situations and preventing over reliance on a singles favored weapon the point of material resistances (and weapon damage type resistances, for that matter)?

You're not wrong, but it's also a problem for certain types of play. If you want to play a character that has an ancestral sword, or disdains excessive wealth, or any number of other reasons, carrying around a collection of a dozen swords for different enemies doesn't really fit the character concept. Considering how much 5e is focussed on allowing almost any character option, it makes sense to me that they would avoid this. Also, note that Staffan has corrected my edition numbering

In general, the designers felt that 3.5e suffered from what was referred to as a "Christmas Tree" effect, where players (especially at high level) were too reliant on multiple magic items (effectively wearing magic items like ornaments on a Christmas Tree). How much of a problem this is could be debated, but it's definitely true that multiple material resistances adds to the effect.

 

[Laurefindel]

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.

Yes, this bothers me too. Once you get a magic weapon - or whatever ability that considers something as magical for the purpose of bypassing damage resistance and immunity - you can pretty much ignore having to deal with resistance to BPS damage ever again.

And as for bludgeoning, piercing and slashing differentiation, I tend to agree with @Yaarel; for what the game makes of it, it's not worth the design space.

...or physical space for that matter: shortening "bludgeoning, piercing and slashing" to "weapon" is an economy of 21 characters (or savings up to 77.777%)! In many places, the space taken by "bludgeoning, piercing and slashing" is half the whole sentence.

 

[billd91]

3.5 lowered the resistances so 15 was considered very high, but presented materials (as well as alignment) as separate from "magic" (which in turn is no longer separated by plusses, so a +4 and a +1 weapon are equally good at penetrating DR except for the 3 points of damage extra the +4 weapon does). The idea here was that even if you didn't have the right weapon, the DR would be low enough that it would be a speed bump and not a wall. This is what gets you the "golfbag" warrior – a concept I personally like where a professional warrior would use different weapons for different foes ("the right tool for the job"), but I recognize that many didn't like it. Then you get Pathfinder 1 which adds in the concept that certain pluses count as different materials as well.

I really did like the PF1 enhancement to DR. 3.5 made an important shift away from needing a specific plus to hit something, PF1 added back in notable benefits of having a higher plus.

 

[Jer]

In general, the designers felt that 3.5e suffered from what was referred to as a "Christmas Tree" effect, where players (especially at high level) were too reliant on multiple magic items (effectively wearing magic items like ornaments on a Christmas Tree). How much of a problem this is could be debated, but it's definitely true that multiple material resistances adds to the effect.

IIRC during the 3.0/3.5 era the Christmas Tree effect was debated right here on these very boards. As you might expect everyone here was of one voice about how good/bad it was in 3.5 and how much it was/was not like earlier editions of the game

4e's design was definitely trying to react to some level of discontent that some folks had over mid-to-high level parties carrying around substantial collection of magic items, but from that came limitations on magic items/level which eventually was re-written as attunement rules in 5e.

 

[Charlaquin]

You're not wrong, but it's also a problem for certain types of play. If you want to play a character that has an ancestral sword, or disdains excessive wealth, or any number of other reasons, carrying around a collection of a dozen swords for different enemies doesn't really fit the character concept. Considering how much 5e is focussed on allowing almost any character option, it makes sense to me that they would avoid this. Also, note that Staffan has corrected my edition numbering

In general, the designers felt that 3.5e suffered from what was referred to as a "Christmas Tree" effect, where players (especially at high level) were too reliant on multiple magic items (effectively wearing magic items like ornaments on a Christmas Tree). How much of a problem this is could be debated, but it's definitely true that multiple material resistances adds to the effect.

Yeah, I definitely understand 5e wanting to avoid the Christmas Tree effect. Just seemed like strange reasoning in the transition from 3e to 3.5e. Makes more sense with Steffan’s clarification though.