D&D 5E UA Warforged AC

...
For my own games, I'm considering introducing "masterwork" weapons or something similar, with the idea that such a weapon counts as a magical weapon, but does not have a +1 or any other effect. I haven't quite figured out how that will work yet, so I don't want to derail the thread. (Similarly, there are some other changes I would like to make, such as trying the idea of giving more feat choices at various levels.)
...
Look up moon touched weapons. They glow dim light in a 15 foot radius, but the real benefit is that they count as magical weapons. Common magic items.

As a note - 5E is designed with the idea that PCs level 1 to 5 will face monsters with resistance or immunity to nonmagical weapons - and will not have the assets to get past the resistance/immunity. They mean for people to struggle to find solutions to these challenges. This was discussed during the Next test play days - they wanted every ability for monsters to be meaningful, not obligatory. If they assume all monsters with these abilities will be attacked by PCs with the requisite magic items, then it is just a non-factor.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

For my own games, I'm considering introducing "masterwork" weapons or something similar, with the idea that such a weapon counts as a magical weapon, but does not have a +1 or any other effect. I haven't quite figured out how that will work yet, so I don't want to derail the thread. (Similarly, there are some other changes I would like to make, such as trying the idea of giving more feat choices at various levels.)
back into the game.
I've mused about that myself. I've considered rerolling damage or rerolling 1s. Or a +1 to damage but not attacks.

Though, what's the default assumption of the game? As said, I'm rather inexperienced at running the game. I would like to homebrew content, but I'm admittedly struggling to see what the baseline assumptions are intended to be.
It can be tricky. I've listened to some design podcasts and read the books a bunch, and have been homebrewing for years.
It's just a learning process. Trying something, seeing if it works, and being willing to tweak the balance periodically.

Like any skill, the more you do and the more you practice the better you get.

To be fair, it's not difficult to achieve high AC without being a warforged. The way the race was presented in UA simply highlights the ability to achieve such a score.
The warforged made it exceptionally easy. It started with the best armour of each type, which generally needed a few sessions to save up an acquire. They didn't need 1,500gp for that plate armour. And it just got even higher as it added their full proficiency bonus. (At the time, I thought having it's AC only add half its proficiency bonus was probably more than enough. And the final print version is even better since you can at least benefit from finding magic armour.)

I'm using the book warforged in a game right now, and between a shield and shield of faith I basically can't be hit by attacks. Which takes some of the fun away from the DM who can only hit me 10% of the time.

In a game with "bounded accuracy" as a stated goal, I'm noticing a lot more +1 bonuses starting to creep back into the game.
Bonuses have always existed in 5e.

Bounded accuracy doesn't mean there are never any bonuses. It means the DC doesn't go up arbitrarily based on level. You get better and can acquire items or cast spells that make you better, increasing your odds of success.
This is opposed to 3e/4e and PF1&2 where you get constant bonuses to your attacks, AC, skills, and saves that largely keep pace with the increasing DCs of the world so your odds of success remain static.
 

I'm aware bonuses exist. It's my perception (and perhaps a flawed one) that the ability to accumulate more of them is becoming easier for a character.
 

Look up moon touched weapons. They glow dim light in a 15 foot radius, but the real benefit is that they count as magical weapons. Common magic items.

As a note - 5E is designed with the idea that PCs level 1 to 5 will face monsters with resistance or immunity to nonmagical weapons - and will not have the assets to get past the resistance/immunity. They mean for people to struggle to find solutions to these challenges. This was discussed during the Next test play days - they wanted every ability for monsters to be meaningful, not obligatory. If they assume all monsters with these abilities will be attacked by PCs with the requisite magic items, then it is just a non-factor.

That's a good point. However, on the other end of the spectrum, there comes a point in the progression of 5E creatures where many creatures of a particular level appear to be built with the assumption that such items are accessible. That leans a little toward "obligatory."

Though, it could be argued that such a structure highlights why monks (and similar classes who can treat attacks as magic) are valuable. I'm not opposed to that interpretation and actually somewhat like seeing it that way. However, I think that leads to building worlds in a way which is different than how many of the default products are written.
 

Remove ads

Top