yes but he specifically mentions his party does Lightning and other types of damage that get resisted but his never do, because they are or can be "magic/silver", which leads me to believe either their DM is homebrewing his damage to bypass resistances or he's doing something wrong with his build.
Mmmh, if something is resistant to a specific kind of damage (lightning, fire, poison etc) they get half damage only from attacks dealing that kind of damage. OP's point is that because he does not deal any aspected damage, but only has magic weapon granting flat bonus or silvered weapons, his damage output is almost consistently unreduced. Also, a magic weapon, regardless of enchantment, bypasses normal bludgeoning/piercing/slashing damage resistance (unless otherwise specified in the enemy's stats), so he is effectively not getting his damage reduced from the resistance of a very sizeable chunk of monsters present in the MM.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Born in Italy, moved a bunch, living in Spain, my heart always belonged to Roleplaying Games
Yeah i tried looking up monsters immune or resistant to bludgeoning, piercing and slashing and there aren't many. Of course I don't think the advanced filters are working because none of the golems came up with those filters.
Indeed there seem to be something wrong with the immunity filter, as I can't make them appear either searching for bludgeoning immune monsters, unless it counts all damages after a semicolon as one single entity, which would be weird.
In any case, most of Golems as well are immune to mundane weapons, and magical or adamantine ones bypass this immunity.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Born in Italy, moved a bunch, living in Spain, my heart always belonged to Roleplaying Games
After reading a few posts about your party, and doing some math (You should be at +12 to hit and, not counting crits, you're doing an average of 75 damage on one round of combat, and 41 every other round) you're pretty much right where I as a GM would expect a damage dealing class to be.
The rest of the party seems WAY underpowered, and your description of the Paladin in your party confirms that. +6 to hit at level 15 is incredibly low for a melee class (I'm not counting the +2 for the weapon, since it's an artificial bump).
So yeah, your GM is currently trying to balance a BIG power gap when it comes to combat. Which is really tough. It's hard to find a balance where the monsters aren't getting absolutely wrecked by you or completely destroying the rest of the party.
Still, he should be willing to give you some non-combat magic items.
That's what this thread is about, are magic items used to give defense players more offense? If that's the case, then an offensive player should be able to get more defense....
Actually, no.
It does not logically follow that "offensive characters" should necessarily get defensive magic items because "defensive characters" got some offensive items.
Magic item distribution is based on many factors... including the DM's preference, storyline, team composition, character archetypes, etc.
Again, I think part of the problems is that you are making "builds" and not characters... so you are thinking in terms of crunch and big numbers. Magic items are not even factored into the balance of the classes and encounters, so anything you get is a boon.
That's what this thread is about, are magic items used to give defense players more offense? If that's the case, then an offensive player should be able to get more defense....
Actually, no.
It does not logically follow that "offensive characters" should necessarily get defensive magic items because "defensive characters" got some offensive items.
Magic item distribution is based on many factors... including the DM's preference, storyline, team composition, character archetypes, etc.
Again, I think part of the problems is that you are making "builds" and not characters... so you are thinking in terms of crunch and big numbers. Magic items are not even factored into the balance of the classes and encounters, so anything you get is a boon.
Are you an only child? Definitely not a parent. You try that argument with kids and it's going to get rough.
DMs should stay the hell out of magic item distribution once the players have them. Players should be allowed every opportunity to make their own decisions, and their own mistakes. If they can't cooperate on such a simple thing, how are they able to take down dragons ? (oh yeah, 275 DPR combined should do it.)
That's what this thread is about, are magic items used to give defense players more offense? If that's the case, then an offensive player should be able to get more defense....
Actually, no.
It does not logically follow that "offensive characters" should necessarily get defensive magic items because "defensive characters" got some offensive items.
Magic item distribution is based on many factors... including the DM's preference, storyline, team composition, character archetypes, etc.
Again, I think part of the problems is that you are making "builds" and not characters... so you are thinking in terms of crunch and big numbers. Magic items are not even factored into the balance of the classes and encounters, so anything you get is a boon.
Are you an only child? Definitely not a parent. You try that argument with kids and it's going to get rough.
DMs should stay the hell out of magic item distribution once the players have them. Players should be allowed every opportunity to make their own decisions, and their own mistakes. If they can't cooperate on such a simple thing, how are they able to take down dragons ? (oh yeah, 275 DPR combined should do it.)
Apart from that, I agree with you.
Well.... the condescension is unnecessary. (and the kid thing doesn't even qualify as a meaningful analogy).
For the most part, I am not grasping the relevance of your comment as it seems to be irrelevant to any point that I made.
You are 'not grasping the relevance' because you are still upset about the (perceived) condescension.
Get over yourself, and I will try to explain:
"Actually, no. It does not logically follow that........." The OP is not bringing logic into it, that was your mistake.
The OP is saying that if his brother has a shiny new toy, then he wants one too. That may not be logical, but it is to be expected. Most of the DMing advice I have seen over the years has included the wisdom to discern what type of player each individual is, and then to apportion some time to cater (not pander) to that style. This requires compromise, yes, but if you don't do it, you are going to have an unhappy (or at least, dis-satisfied) player.
If you have children (plural) then you have to at least give the illusion that they are all being treated equally.
There's a reason Dr. Spock's wisdom was so respected. Like the Go Rin No Sho is used by business men, Dr. Spock's words should be heeded by DM's.
Is it logical to get upset over one difference of opinion when I admitted to agreeing with everything else you wrote?
If you have children (plural) then you have to at least give the illusion that they are all being treated equally.
Well, that... or teach them the important difference between being treated equally and being treated fairly, so that they realize those aren't always (or even typically) the same thing.
If you have children (plural) then you have to at least give the illusion that they are all being treated equally.
Well, that... or teach them the important difference between being treated equally and being treated fairly, so that they realize those aren't always (or even typically) the same thing.
Why do you think teaching them the difference is less important than giving the illusion? I said "at least."
I will assume you are pointing out the obvious for those who need it pointed out.
TBH if one of my players is so much of a child that they can't cope with being treated fairly, I'd let them know they can find another campaign. The other players in this group are severely underpowered for their level, and the DM can't create a satisfying encounter for everyone involved without attempting to bring them to a power level more suitable for their current level. This player either wants to steamroll everything (and give the other players nothing to do), or have a challenge (that the other players will not be able to handle). Once the rest of the party is at the appropriate level, the DM will be able to treat everyone """equally""". If one of my players insisted on whining like a child about getting a toy they don't need, I would tell them that when they need something, they might get it, but right now they don't need it. If they couldn't accept that, they'd be welcome to find a new campaign.
Then again, I've never had this problem since my players are there to have fun in a social, team-based setting. /shrug
TBH if one of my players is so much of a child that they can't cope with being treated fairly, I'd let them know they can find another campaign. The other players in this group are severely underpowered for their level, and the DM can't create a satisfying encounter for everyone involved without attempting to bring them to a power level more suitable for their current level. This player either wants to steamroll everything (and give the other players nothing to do), or have a challenge (that the other players will not be able to handle). Once the rest of the party is at the appropriate level, the DM will be able to treat everyone """equally""". If one of my players insisted on whining like a child about getting a toy they don't need, I would tell them that when they need something, they might get it, but right now they don't need it. If they couldn't accept that, they'd be welcome to find a new campaign.
Then again, I've never had this problem since my players are there to have fun in a social, team-based setting. /shrug
You are 'not grasping the relevance' because you are still upset about the (perceived) condescension.
Get over yourself, and I will try to explain:
"Actually, no. It does not logically follow that........." The OP is not bringing logic into it, that was your mistake.
The OP is saying that if his brother has a shiny new toy, then he wants one too. That may not be logical, but it is to be expected. Most of the DMing advice I have seen over the years has included the wisdom to discern what type of player each individual is, and then to apportion some time to cater (not pander) to that style. This requires compromise, yes, but if you don't do it, you are going to have an unhappy (or at least, dis-satisfied) player.
If you have children (plural) then you have to at least give the illusion that they are all being treated equally.
There's a reason Dr. Spock's wisdom was so respected. Like the Go Rin No Sho is used by business men, Dr. Spock's words should be heeded by DM's.
Is it logical to get upset over one difference of opinion when I admitted to agreeing with everything else you wrote?
"You are 'not grasping the relevance' because you are still upset about the (perceived) condescension.
Get over yourself, and I will try to explain"
If you are going to insist on being keyboard warrior, at least try to be civil. Check your ego at the door. Thanks.
Why do you think teaching them the difference is less important than giving the illusion? I said "at least."
I will assume you are pointing out the obvious for those who need it pointed out.
Teaching the difference is more important, and more successful in sustained use than giving the illusion.
Fooling children is easy, but it's not going to last - so finding ways to not have to try and get it to last or else something undesirable will happen, such as teaching your child(ren) that "fair" and "equal" mean different things (like it being "fair" that the one that wants pants getting pants, but the one that wants a dress getting a dress, while "equal" is both getting a dress no matter how they feel about wearing it).
That exact thing applies here; It's not equal that one player has 3 uncommon items and another has a rare and a legendary and what might be an artifact (I don't know since most of the names of magic items mentioned appear to be home-brew stuff). But it could be fair for that to be the distribution (depending on a number of factors us readers of the thread do not know, which happen to include that one character is a damage-focused flying archer with a damage boost and a defense boost, and the other characters seem to have more overlapping items that they can't really benefit from all of at the same time).
Why do you think teaching them the difference is less important than giving the illusion? I said "at least."
I will assume you are pointing out the obvious for those who need it pointed out.
Teaching the difference is more important, and more successful in sustained use than giving the illusion.
Fooling children is easy, but it's not going to last - so finding ways to not have to try and get it to last or else something undesirable will happen, such as teaching your child(ren) that "fair" and "equal" mean different things (like it being "fair" that the one that wants pants getting pants, but the one that wants a dress getting a dress, while "equal" is both getting a dress no matter how they feel about wearing it).
That exact thing applies here; It's not equal that one player has 3 uncommon items and another has a rare and a legendary and what might be an artifact (I don't know since most of the names of magic items mentioned appear to be home-brew stuff). But it could be fair for that to be the distribution (depending on a number of factors us readers of the thread do not know, which happen to include that one character is a damage-focused flying archer with a damage boost and a defense boost, and the other characters seem to have more overlapping items that they can't really benefit from all of at the same time).
"If you are going to insist on being keyboard warrior....................."
I found this little gem on a website dedicated to Dungeons and Dragons, a game for 13 years and over, where the participants pretend to be mighty heroes, battling bad guys and undead beings and dragons.....Took me nearly 24 hours to fully appreciate it though!
"If you have children (plural) then you have to at least give the illusion that they are all being treated equally." - Me.
So yes, I agree that actually treating them all fairly is more important - although children being children they will not always see that is the case; merely giving the illusion of equality/fairness is a lesser option, but sometimes that is all you have.
Seems using children as an analogy for D&D players has relevance after all............ :)
Equality is objective. Fairness is subjective. Taking this thread alone, you can see why one is harder to achieve than the other. Hence the use of the word "least."
"Equality" is less important than "fairness" but easier to complain about and quantify. If the OP is having as much 'fun' around the table as the other players, then I guess the DM has done a good job of achieving "fairness."
"Keyboard warrior"? - Nah, I base my character on Rick Wakeman. :)
I think its a bit strange to compare grown people to children? I mean, the latter is biologically incapable of empathy or that the world doesn't revolve around them. The former absolutely should. I mean, I personally find it a bit insulting that I should be considered a child at the table?
One thing that is odd about this thread is that, when I DM, I don't give magic items to characters or players. I give magic items to the party and the party decides who gets what. There are unusual instances when I give a magic item to a particular player... such as during character creation time if a player is joining a group of non 1st level characters.
DM's aren't required to give out magic items. Also, as some others have pointed out... the game is balanced around not having magic items.
It sounds (to me) like the DM and the OP have other issues going on... it seems like there is a personal grudge on both sides.
But I disagree with the OP when he feels that he should be entitled to magic items because he decided to play a super uber munchkiny DPS "build"...... and now the DM is trying to balance the game between his other players (with too many/powerful magic items) and the OP.
Lol, in our last encounter....to try and reign me in, the DM gave an NPC a Shield of Missile Attraction to protect the BBEG.
We won that fight, now our Paladin with an AC of 26 and a Displacer cloak is intercepting all incoming arrows....Oddly enough, the DM bragged to me about how he cut my damage in half for that encounter. The shield gives a resist to Piercing damage.
So now our Paladin is basically intercepting any incoming enemy arrows, if they CAN hit an AC of 26 at disadvantage. Even if they do, the Paladin takes half damage. In short, to spite me and my damage for an encounter....our group got a huge defensive upgrade.
I'm just going to continue to stay within close distance of the Paladin. Not only am I getting a huge bonus to saves...any arrow fired at me will swerve and hit (miss!) our Paladin. I'm free to fire arrows without fear of someone returning fire to me.
Couldn't have asked for another party member to get a magic item that helps me. Pretty sure the DM doesn't understand the ramifications yet.
In other words, if I stay within range of the Paladin....all ranged attacks against me (while I'm free to make my own ranged attacks) will instead try to hit the Paladin. Who imposes Disadvantage on attacks against him, has a gigantic AC and can heal himself easily.
Born in Italy, moved a bunch, living in Spain, my heart always belonged to Roleplaying Games
Born in Italy, moved a bunch, living in Spain, my heart always belonged to Roleplaying Games
After reading a few posts about your party, and doing some math (You should be at +12 to hit and, not counting crits, you're doing an average of 75 damage on one round of combat, and 41 every other round) you're pretty much right where I as a GM would expect a damage dealing class to be.
The rest of the party seems WAY underpowered, and your description of the Paladin in your party confirms that. +6 to hit at level 15 is incredibly low for a melee class (I'm not counting the +2 for the weapon, since it's an artificial bump).
So yeah, your GM is currently trying to balance a BIG power gap when it comes to combat. Which is really tough. It's hard to find a balance where the monsters aren't getting absolutely wrecked by you or completely destroying the rest of the party.
Still, he should be willing to give you some non-combat magic items.
You try that argument with kids and it's going to get rough.
Players should be allowed every opportunity to make their own decisions, and their own mistakes. If they can't cooperate on such a simple thing, how are they able to take down dragons ? (oh yeah, 275 DPR combined should do it.)
Roleplaying since Runequest.
You are 'not grasping the relevance' because you are still upset about the (perceived) condescension.
Get over yourself, and I will try to explain:
"Actually, no.
It does not logically follow that........."
The OP is not bringing logic into it, that was your mistake.
The OP is saying that if his brother has a shiny new toy, then he wants one too. That may not be logical, but it is to be expected. Most of the DMing advice I have seen over the years has included the wisdom to discern what type of player each individual is, and then to apportion some time to cater (not pander) to that style. This requires compromise, yes, but if you don't do it, you are going to have an unhappy (or at least, dis-satisfied) player.
If you have children (plural) then you have to at least give the illusion that they are all being treated equally.
There's a reason Dr. Spock's wisdom was so respected. Like the Go Rin No Sho is used by business men, Dr. Spock's words should be heeded by DM's.
Is it logical to get upset over one difference of opinion when I admitted to agreeing with everything else you wrote?
Roleplaying since Runequest.
Well, that... or teach them the important difference between being treated equally and being treated fairly, so that they realize those aren't always (or even typically) the same thing.
I said "at least."
Roleplaying since Runequest.
TBH if one of my players is so much of a child that they can't cope with being treated fairly, I'd let them know they can find another campaign. The other players in this group are severely underpowered for their level, and the DM can't create a satisfying encounter for everyone involved without attempting to bring them to a power level more suitable for their current level. This player either wants to steamroll everything (and give the other players nothing to do), or have a challenge (that the other players will not be able to handle). Once the rest of the party is at the appropriate level, the DM will be able to treat everyone """equally""". If one of my players insisted on whining like a child about getting a toy they don't need, I would tell them that when they need something, they might get it, but right now they don't need it. If they couldn't accept that, they'd be welcome to find a new campaign.
Then again, I've never had this problem since my players are there to have fun in a social, team-based setting. /shrug
Get over yourself, and I will try to explain"
If you are going to insist on being keyboard warrior, at least try to be civil. Check your ego at the door. Thanks.
"If you are going to insist on being keyboard warrior....................."
I found this little gem on a website dedicated to Dungeons and Dragons, a game for 13 years and over, where the participants pretend to be mighty heroes, battling bad guys and undead beings and dragons.....Took me nearly 24 hours to fully appreciate it though!
"If you have children (plural) then you have to at least give the illusion that they are all being treated equally." - Me.
So yes, I agree that actually treating them all fairly is more important - although children being children they will not always see that is the case; merely giving the illusion of equality/fairness is a lesser option, but sometimes that is all you have.
Seems using children as an analogy for D&D players has relevance after all............ :)
Equality is objective. Fairness is subjective.
Taking this thread alone, you can see why one is harder to achieve than the other.
Hence the use of the word "least."
"Equality" is less important than "fairness" but easier to complain about and quantify. If the OP is having as much 'fun' around the table as the other players, then I guess the DM has done a good job of achieving "fairness."
"Keyboard warrior"? - Nah, I base my character on Rick Wakeman. :)
Roleplaying since Runequest.
I think its a bit strange to compare grown people to children? I mean, the latter is biologically incapable of empathy or that the world doesn't revolve around them. The former absolutely should. I mean, I personally find it a bit insulting that I should be considered a child at the table?
One thing that is odd about this thread is that, when I DM, I don't give magic items to characters or players. I give magic items to the party and the party decides who gets what. There are unusual instances when I give a magic item to a particular player... such as during character creation time if a player is joining a group of non 1st level characters.
DM's aren't required to give out magic items. Also, as some others have pointed out... the game is balanced around not having magic items.
It sounds (to me) like the DM and the OP have other issues going on... it seems like there is a personal grudge on both sides.
But I disagree with the OP when he feels that he should be entitled to magic items because he decided to play a super uber munchkiny DPS "build"...... and now the DM is trying to balance the game between his other players (with too many/powerful magic items) and the OP.
Bracers of Archery doesn't help with Sharpshooter at all. It IS a direct upgrade, gives +2 damage per arrow.
Lol, in our last encounter....to try and reign me in, the DM gave an NPC a Shield of Missile Attraction to protect the BBEG.
We won that fight, now our Paladin with an AC of 26 and a Displacer cloak is intercepting all incoming arrows....Oddly enough, the DM bragged to me about how he cut my damage in half for that encounter. The shield gives a resist to Piercing damage.
So now our Paladin is basically intercepting any incoming enemy arrows, if they CAN hit an AC of 26 at disadvantage. Even if they do, the Paladin takes half damage. In short, to spite me and my damage for an encounter....our group got a huge defensive upgrade.
I'm just going to continue to stay within close distance of the Paladin. Not only am I getting a huge bonus to saves...any arrow fired at me will swerve and hit (miss!) our Paladin. I'm free to fire arrows without fear of someone returning fire to me.
Couldn't have asked for another party member to get a magic item that helps me. Pretty sure the DM doesn't understand the ramifications yet.
In other words, if I stay within range of the Paladin....all ranged attacks against me (while I'm free to make my own ranged attacks) will instead try to hit the Paladin. Who imposes Disadvantage on attacks against him, has a gigantic AC and can heal himself easily.