... And the designers with their plans to give fighters in particular access to multiple masteries, seem to be encouraging carrying around multiple weapons. How it will work in play remains to be seen. But it is kind of a different way of getting at the issue of weapon sameness.
I don't know if its changed, but this is not the case from what I remember. Mastery is Mastery, so any martial class that has mastery would have it for any and all weapons. In fact Fighters are the opposite of what you say. Since they can change the mastery of a weapon. In essence, it means they can carry fewer weapons around, since they can just apply a mastery to a weapon that doesn't normally have that.
I'm also gonna say, because apparently I'm on a hot take streak, that vulnerability and resistance aren't really very good tools to distinguish between damage types in the first place. Just expanding the range of monsters that are weak or strong to certain types of damage doesn't lead to interesting choices; it just leads to that Golf Bag effect Xalthu mentioned. A better solution would be to make certain weapons have certain extra effects, the way Cantrips currently work for casters.Then you get something interesting when combining that with vulnerability, resistance, and immunity.
Saying "Oh, this guy is immune to Slashing, guess I better pull out my Bludgeoning or Piercing weapon," isn't very interesting. Saying instead, "Oh, this guy is immune to Slashing, that means I can't use the cool effect that my Slashing weapon has, I'll have to come up with a new strategy using the effects of my Bludgeoning and Piercing weapons," is way cooler, and I hope the new weapon masteries in 5.5e enable that.
I agree a bit. Especially since a lot of dept is lost, like "immune to non-magical weapon attacks" becomes pointless since at a certain point players will always be using magical weapons. Immunity is a bit rough tho, since its a full stop. But there also isn't a downside, so once you reach that point, no need to have a different type. Slivered weapons, seem to be a mechanic that is vestigial at this point as well. Its there, but barely and rarely used
Also, its a bit of an odd thing if we think of the physics. Like a poleaxe, can do slashing, piercing, or bludgeoning damage. Literally any sword could do bludgeoning using the pommel and most could do piercing by simply using it a different way (unless you're using an executioner's blade type).
It is not just the martials, the magical are CONSTANTLY punished the way you claim the martials are suddenly punished. Oh, you are a fire mage? Lets throw a fire elemental at you.
Some of the reason why the martials are punished rarely is to make up for the constant punisment the magicals have.
Are you serious right now? Are you saying magic is more limiting than martial? You must be out of your mind. There is ' "Fire mage" just no such thing. That is something you put a limit on yourself. In fact, its quite difficult for any caster to go purely into a single element. The total spell prep and cantrips pretty much force you to have variety. Need to change to a different spell? Oh, how many actions does it take to store your current spell and pull out the other? Oh, none, exactly. Casters literally have spells that let them pick the damage element (Chromatic Orb for example). You're likely only bothered because Fire is the most commonly resisted element and it disrupts your Firebolt spamming, because its a 1d10, pretty much doing damage equal to high end Heavy Martial weapons (with only 3 doing potentially more) except, it also scales so...yeah. There is that too.
Honestly, don't try to claim casters have it hard compared to martials. Level 20 Caster "I can reshape the world, stop time and teleport through the planes" Level 20 Fighter "I can swing 4 times" Yes, how rough it is for casters LOL.
The variety of damage types exists because of how versatile casters are, "Oh that enemy is resistant to fire, let me use one of my other handful of cantrips. All you need is Chill Touch and Fire Bolt, and you're pretty much good. Neither even are based on saving throws and they scale well. Not to mention that even if a caster can't do damage, they have spells that do a ton of other effects. If a Martial can't do damage they're useless in the fight.
Frankly, you could group them together, and the encounters in the game probably wouldn't change whatsoever. Although I believe there are still reasons to keep the damage types, like interacting with physical objects, for example, there's nothing wrong with making them the same damage type.
Have fun with your longsword in a black pudding fight. Oh wait, all weapons are the same so it's now immune to all weapons and splits when you hit it with a mace.
Okay but like... That's actually an example of the problem. Physical damage types almost never matter, except when they suddenly do. Then your martials are arbitrarily punished for a thing that never mattered before, and probably will not matter again afterwards.
I don't think they should merge all physical damage into a single type either, but if they're going to keep them separate, they should make the different types matter frequently (or even all the time!) instead of only very occasionally. I also think there's probably a better way to do this than a Pokemon-esque type effectiveness chart, but that's a deeper game design discussion.
Is it really any different then a caster who, like the martial, it never mattered until running into a creature with magic resistance or legendary resistance?
I’m fine with how it is. But they seem to be changing something in the 2024 update as features that overcome no -magical B, P, S damage is being changed to force.
In what way does the game condition PC's to choose spells or weapons, and how is your example of the fire elemental any different than the black pudding? If fire and poison have always worked then the first fire elemental you come across is going to just as steep a learning curve as the black pudding, and a pudding being super easy to slash into chunks is no more shocking than learning a Flameskull will regain of its hit points in 1 hour unless 1 of 2 3rd level spells is cast on it's remains or you sprinkle holy water on them. Flameskulls are equal opportunity tough to figure out for all PC's. I personally love that the game designers put such an easy mechanic in the game to keep me on my toes and think even during combat, kinda like when the tough guy in a story attacks someone with everything they can and they just get a smile back from who/what they are fighting.
In what way? In the way, that in the referenced example, it is impossible to ONLY choose fire spells and not have room for more spells. Also, Flameskulls regaining their hit points in 1 hour is basically fluff. 1 hour....combat lasts 1 minute. So 1 hour would just be an enemy not being killed while everyone retreats an takes a short rest.
Mastery will motivate players to choose a different weapon so they can have a different master effect. As for outside of that, the variety of magical weapon could be viewed as "conditioning" although I feel that is less intentional and a bias or lack of creativity on the part of the designers. Seriously, how many Magical Longswords, vs others. Magical Swords vs others. Is there even a Magical Glaive? outside of (Any Weapon) ? RAW
My initial point on damage resistance by specific melee damage type is because its so rare that a specific damage type Immunity: Slashing - 3 or 4 (not counting variations like "reduced threat") Bludgeoning - 1 Piercing - 0 Not Silvered - 15 Not Adamantine - 2 pages Not Magical - 3 pages (plus 8 or so individual with it labeled slightly different for some demons) Metal weapon - 1
Resistance: These are a bit more but harder to check since some are resistant to all 3, others are resistant to all but Slashing (Again, DnD loves their Longswords) In general 2-3 pages for each melee damage type.
Now if we compare that to Magic Damage types: I'll be going off pages in the search since there are more than I care to individually count. Immunity: Lightning : 6 pages Thunder: 2 Pages Poison: 36 Pages (mostly undead is my guess) Cold: 7 Pages Radian: 1 page (full page) Fire: 10 pages Necrotic: 6 Pages (more undead is by guess) Acid: 5 pages Psychic: 6 pages Force: 4 individual monsters Resistance: A lot
So my point is that compared to elemental variation, Martial weapons are hardly utilized in their damage type impact, so why even have it (other than the previously mentioned Feats, which to be fair, taking it limits the player quite a bit on their own flexibility, rather just combine into a single feat). Hell from, a damage immunity perspective, its more valuable to deal with adamantine or silvered weapons than weapon damage type. Which is funny because I don't think they actually have entries for those in DnDBeyond, outside of a few magical weapons that "count as" but maybe one day when they make that....clearly not obvious decision....to let us HB Equipment, not just magical items. *NOTE: I only used CORE RAW content in the list.
After reading your posts, I am not sure I understand your argument.
Agreed. Let me try to simplify my point.
Non-magical weapons in 5e are boring, because many weapons are the same as other weapons. Because weapons are boring, weapon users don't often pick up more than one type of weapon. I think this is boring, and could be better.
Cantrips and spells in 5e are less boring than weapons, because cantrips and spells have cool effects beyond the type of damage they deal. Because of these cool effects, magic users often want to learn many spells that deal different types of damage. I think this is good, and I think weapons should be more like spells and cantrips in this way.
I think monsters that have weaknesses and resistances to types of physical damage are not enough to make weapons less boring. I think these monsters just make weapon users collect more boring weapons, which is still boring.
I don't want weapons to be stronger (necessarily). I don't want an atomic bomb that automatically defeats all monsters. I don't want to "win" D&D (I'm a DM, I explicitly expect to lose D&D). I want weapons to not be boring.
P.S. I don't think magic weapons are a good solution to this problem, because the magic weapons that have cool effects tend to be very powerful, and it's hard to give your players more than one without completely invalidating your casters. I want weapon users to have more options, not more power.
P.P.S. You used the analogy of a bulldozer vs a Bugatti. I think that's a good comparison, but I don't think that's what weapon users have right now. Instead, I think weapons are more like a red Toyota and a blue Toyota. They're mostly the same, but the blue Toyota drives better on ~3% of roads, and the red drives better on ~3% of other roads. There is also a green Toyota, but if you already have the red and the blue there's no reason to drive it.
After reading your posts, I am not sure I understand your argument.
Agreed. Let me try to simplify my point.
Non-magical weapons in 5e are boring, because many weapons are the same as other weapons. Because weapons are boring, weapon users don't often pick up more than one type of weapon. I think this is boring, and could be better.
Cantrips and spells in 5e are less boring than weapons, because cantrips and spells have cool effects beyond the type of damage they deal. Because of these cool effects, magic users often want to learn many spells that deal different types of damage. I think this is good, and I think weapons should be more like spells and cantrips in this way.
I think monsters that have weaknesses and resistances to types of physical damage are not enough to make weapons less boring. I think these monsters just make weapon users collect more boring weapons, which is still boring.
I don't want weapons to be stronger (necessarily). I don't want an atomic bomb that automatically defeats all monsters. I don't want to "win" D&D (I'm a DM, I explicitly expect to lose D&D). I want weapons to not be boring.
P.S. I don't think magic weapons are a good solution to this problem, because the magic weapons that have cool effects tend to be very powerful, and it's hard to give your players more than one without completely invalidating your casters. I want weapon users to have more options, not more power.
P.P.S. You used the analogy of a bulldozer vs a Bugatti. I think that's a good comparison, but I don't think that's what weapon users have right now. Instead, I think weapons are more like a red Toyota and a blue Toyota. They're mostly the same, but the blue Toyota drives better on ~3% of roads, and the red drives better on ~3% of other roads. There is also a green Toyota, but if you already have the red and the blue there's no reason to drive it.
I think what you aren't really acknowledging is that there are pros and cons to these things and the current system is just trying to strike a balance between the two.
We want weapon types to matter, but we also don't want to have to carry around a golf bag. So they matter rarely. This lets you focus on the weapon you have specialized in (i.e. the magic item you managed to get) while only leaving you high and dry a small percentage of the time. That's okay, because for those particular encounters you can focus on doing other stuff - shoving, grappling, skill checks, whatever. Unusual stuff that stays interesting because you're not doing it in 50% of encounters.
It allows for flavor to exist for the weapons and the creatures resistant to some of them without making it such a big deal that you need to build your character around it.
It also provides hooks for future content and/or homebrewers. Personally, I like puzzle monsters and I use resistance/vulnerability a LOT across all damage types. And vulnerability often means something other than double damage. I could not do this as effectively if there was just generic weapon damage.
There are directly conflicting forces and mechanics here. You can't better the system in one way without making it worse in another way. I have not seen a proposal in this thread that is better than what we've got from all perspectives. It's just not easily solvable, if it's solvable at all.
I think Masteries will help, though. We will see how the final implementation works. I expect it to be fairly half-baked as the current system is, but the strength of this game is that enterprising DMs can pop it back in the oven and finish it to their liking.
If I'd been the one making the rules, there'd have been a general rule of thumb that stated that one resistance is fine, but if a monster has more than one, it should also have a vulnerability.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Blanket disclaimer: I only ever state opinion. But I can sound terribly dogmatic - so if you feel I'm trying to tell you what to think, I'm really not, I swear. I'm telling you what I think, that's all.
If you're limiting the data set can you share the sources you are using to make your argument so we are all using the same information to sort this out?
In your list you "guess" why not read the information and know?
Any weapon can be magic and or Silvered, rather than list every single option they use the Weapon, +1, Weapon, +2, Weapon, +3 same for armor and shields, Silvered is a little easier to come by.
If you only have the free part of the game you may well be unhappy with your options, that is pretty much the business model for D&D.
My XL trim level truck doesn't have all of the cool stuff my buddies Unlimited trim level does. They both get the same basic job done, one has more bells and whistles but he had to pay more for them. At least D&D lets you either buy them or homebrew them. You even have the option to not use the monsters with the resistances/immunities giving you trouble.
I still don't think this is a problem, I see it as a tool for DM's/writers that want to use it, and a puzzle for players to figure out.
Personally I enjoy playing a character that has to workout things like this, and get bored when it is just attack and then attack some more.
My data set is from DnD Beyond. I just didn't set the filter to include 3rd party content. (So I don't know what "limiting" you're referring to.
I "guess" because I'm not reading 36 pages of search results (I'm posting an opinion on a forum, not writing a dissertation). Also, it doesn't matter. I was just throwing out a point why that quantity of poison resistance is so much higher than the others. The statement is irrelevant to the point. Only have the free model? Huh? I was literally going over the ENTIRE DnD official library dude. There are only 3 silver items when you search the DB. Not really any mechanic to tag it as "silvered" in the tool so you have to just write it down. Also uncertain if it can be a magic weapon or if it makes it magic. For example Adamantine Armor isn't eligible for Artificer Infusions on DnDBeyond due to is being classified as Magic. That's a site issue, yes, but my underlying issue of resistances still remains. My point about silvered is that there are more monsters that are immune to non-silvered weapons than piercing / slashing / bludgeoning.
As for "Leaving it to DMs" then why even have a service or books. If DMs are writing the majority of the weapons, monsters, stories, why pay for anything. I'm talking about RAW. As a DM I could simply get rid of the damage difference. Saying "DM could..." is a nothing argument, since a DM could do anything. I'm talking RAW.
As for "Leaving it to DMs" then why even have a service or books. If DMs are writing the majority of the weapons, monsters, stories, why pay for anything. I'm talking about RAW.
As a DM I could simply get rid of the damage difference. Saying "DM could..." is a nothing argument, since a DM could do anything. I'm talking RAW.
I think this conversation has about run its course, but I wanted to reinforce this point because I think it's a big one. Homebrew really isn't meant to paper over big mechanical deficiencies that affect broad swaths of the game.
I say this as a DM that loves homebrew and does it all the time: it's unreasonable to expect a home DM to just up and design a completely new system that radically changes the way combat works. That kind of thing takes testing, iteration, ideally a team of designers working together. At that point, you might as well just be playing a different game. (And indeed, that is probably what I'm going to do once my current campaign wraps up. ICON looks promising.)
As for "Leaving it to DMs" then why even have a service or books. If DMs are writing the majority of the weapons, monsters, stories, why pay for anything. I'm talking about RAW.
As a DM I could simply get rid of the damage difference. Saying "DM could..." is a nothing argument, since a DM could do anything. I'm talking RAW.
I think this conversation has about run its course, but I wanted to reinforce this point because I think it's a big one. Homebrew really isn't meant to paper over big mechanical deficiencies that affect broad swaths of the game.
I say this as a DM that loves homebrew and does it all the time: it's unreasonable to expect a home DM to just up and design a completely new system that radically changes the way combat works. That kind of thing takes testing, iteration, ideally a team of designers working together. At that point, you might as well just be playing a different game. (And indeed, that is probably what I'm going to do once my current campaign wraps up. ICON looks promising.)
CORE literally a filter in DnDBeyond. I don't know why this is hard for you to understand. What I used "I went to DnDBeyond, did a search. That's it. Partner Content is disabled by default, so I left that disabled.
We're on the official website for content, I used the official website for the content. This shouldn't be something you are having issues with. Are you just trying to brush away my data by feigning uncertainty?
My "guess" again, you're ignoring the core point, which is the amount of resistance & immunity of elemental vs physical type damages. The statement of "guess" is 100% unrelated to that point and is of no consequence, Also, it isn't as easy as you say since it isn't Adding 14 entries per page...etc. since not every entry is likely undead, so to be accurate I would need to go through and count each entry that is or isn't undead BUT, it doesn't matter, because it is still inconsequential to my point.
You're arguing against everything except the actual point I am making. Understand that please.
I won't say that they are entirely pointless, because there are certain monsters that have been historically immune/resistant to slashing, piercing or bludgeoning weapons because of their body types. As far back as 1e and Basic.
As for "Leaving it to DMs" then why even have a service or books. If DMs are writing the majority of the weapons, monsters, stories, why pay for anything. I'm talking about RAW.
As a DM I could simply get rid of the damage difference. Saying "DM could..." is a nothing argument, since a DM could do anything. I'm talking RAW.
I think this conversation has about run its course, but I wanted to reinforce this point because I think it's a big one. Homebrew really isn't meant to paper over big mechanical deficiencies that affect broad swaths of the game.
I say this as a DM that loves homebrew and does it all the time: it's unreasonable to expect a home DM to just up and design a completely new system that radically changes the way combat works. That kind of thing takes testing, iteration, ideally a team of designers working together. At that point, you might as well just be playing a different game. (And indeed, that is probably what I'm going to do once my current campaign wraps up. ICON looks promising.)
CORE literally a filter in DnDBeyond. I don't know why this is hard for you to understand. What I used "I went to DnDBeyond, did a search. That's it. Partner Content is disabled by default, so I left that disabled.
We're on the official website for content, I used the official website for the content. This shouldn't be something you are having issues with. Are you just trying to brush away my data by feigning uncertainty?
My "guess" again, you're ignoring the core point, which is the amount of resistance & immunity of elemental vs physical type damages. The statement of "guess" is 100% unrelated to that point and is of no consequence, Also, it isn't as easy as you say since it isn't Adding 14 entries per page...etc. since not every entry is likely undead, so to be accurate I would need to go through and count each entry that is or isn't undead BUT, it doesn't matter, because it is still inconsequential to my point.
You're arguing against everything except the actual point I am making. Understand that please.
So to be fair, I'm not even sure what the 'CORE' filter even does. I was playing around with the 'CORE' and 'Non-CORE' filters, and there was overlap between the two, and some things that should have been 'Core' were appearing on the 'Non-CORE' and the other way around. So I'm not sure that particular filter is working in the way you expect it.
You also haven't answered one of the key questions raised, what sources do you own? That will effect the results, as only sources you own will show up in the search results. If two people try to conduct the same search with different sources available, they will get different results.
One other consideration that you've ignored, is vulnerabilities to these basic damage types. Bludgeoning damage is actually quite common as a vulnerability, while my quick search only had like one for slashing and none for piercing.
So to be fair, I'm not even sure what the 'CORE' filter even does. I was playing around with the 'CORE' and 'Non-CORE' filters, and there was overlap between the two, and some things that should have been 'Core' were appearing on the 'Non-CORE' and the other way around. So I'm not sure that particular filter is working in the way you expect it.
You also haven't answered one of the key questions raised, what sources do you own? That will effect the results, as only sources you own will show up in the search results. If two people try to conduct the same search with different sources available, they will get different results.
One other consideration that you've ignored, is vulnerabilities to these basic damage types. Bludgeoning damage is actually quite common as a vulnerability, while my quick search only had like one for slashing and none for piercing.
There may be a misunderstanding on how the DnDBeyond search engine works. It does not limit your search based on what you have purchased, so "CORE" literally everything WotC has included on DnD Beyond that is not classified as "Partner Content" It only treats your ownership when you try to get details on a given item (monster, race, spell, etc).
I did ignore vulnerabilities, but the pattern still remains. Very few when compared to magical elements. Nearly all (all but 5) bludgeoning are select undead creatures. Vulnerabilities in general aren't as common as resistances or immunities so I didn't bother looking. Likely due to double damage having a much great unbalancing effect than half damage.
So to be fair, I'm not even sure what the 'CORE' filter even does. I was playing around with the 'CORE' and 'Non-CORE' filters, and there was overlap between the two, and some things that should have been 'Core' were appearing on the 'Non-CORE' and the other way around. So I'm not sure that particular filter is working in the way you expect it.
You also haven't answered one of the key questions raised, what sources do you own? That will effect the results, as only sources you own will show up in the search results. If two people try to conduct the same search with different sources available, they will get different results.
One other consideration that you've ignored, is vulnerabilities to these basic damage types. Bludgeoning damage is actually quite common as a vulnerability, while my quick search only had like one for slashing and none for piercing.
There may be a misunderstanding on how the DnDBeyond search engine works. It does not limit your search based on what you have purchased, so "CORE" literally everything WotC has included on DnD Beyond that is not classified as "Partner Content" It only treats your ownership when you try to get details on a given item (monster, race, spell, etc).
Yeah that's my bad, I forgot that's how it handles unowned content in the searches now. Interestingly they've also added a 'Partner Content' filter as well, which in theory should do the same thing? I'm too lazy to check.
I partially agree with Op and Mdhe (pronun?) that weapon damage types should matter more in the game if they are to matter at all. That's why weapon masteries make sense and improve the game for martials (except Monks, b/c evidently they eat dirt and enjoy it). I also agree that certain weapons should have special properties. Flails, for example, should be able to negate shields and spears should be able to do extra die of damage against charging opponents as part of a Readied action. The main issue I think a lot of DMs, including myself, have is that adding a lot of extra rules to weapons can feel intimidating to new players and most martials are built to be easier to play than casters. So I feel like most special weapon properties should be phased in at the DM's discretion rather than as part of default rules.
I find that extra rules like that are inherently optional. I just remind the players when they become relevant. "By the way, they have a shield, so your flail basically gets +2". Just like Attacks of Opportunity - I just remind new players that it's a possibility as it comes up.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
I partially agree with Op and Mdhe (pronun?) that weapon damage types should matter more in the game if they are to matter at all. That's why weapon masteries make sense and improve the game for martials (except Monks, b/c evidently they eat dirt and enjoy it). I also agree that certain weapons should have special properties. Flails, for example, should be able to negate shields and spears should be able to do extra die of damage against charging opponents as part of a Readied action. The main issue I think a lot of DMs, including myself, have is that adding a lot of extra rules to weapons can feel intimidating to new players and most martials are built to be easier to play than casters. So I feel like most special weapon properties should be phased in at the DM's discretion rather than as part of default rules.
(I usually just say all the letters but however you're pronouncing it in your head is fine)
Agreed that phasing in advanced weapon rules over time would be the best way to do it. 5e's biggest strength is how easy it is to pick up, and I wouldn't want to compromise that. But on the other hand, the simplicity that makes the game easy to learn does work against it for long-term replay value. Having an established set of Advanced Weapon Rules ready to be phased in at the DM's and players' discretion seems like the best balance between accessibility and longevity.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I don't know if its changed, but this is not the case from what I remember. Mastery is Mastery, so any martial class that has mastery would have it for any and all weapons.
In fact Fighters are the opposite of what you say. Since they can change the mastery of a weapon. In essence, it means they can carry fewer weapons around, since they can just apply a mastery to a weapon that doesn't normally have that.
I agree a bit. Especially since a lot of dept is lost, like "immune to non-magical weapon attacks" becomes pointless since at a certain point players will always be using magical weapons. Immunity is a bit rough tho, since its a full stop. But there also isn't a downside, so once you reach that point, no need to have a different type. Slivered weapons, seem to be a mechanic that is vestigial at this point as well. Its there, but barely and rarely used
Also, its a bit of an odd thing if we think of the physics. Like a poleaxe, can do slashing, piercing, or bludgeoning damage. Literally any sword could do bludgeoning using the pommel and most could do piercing by simply using it a different way (unless you're using an executioner's blade type).
Are you serious right now? Are you saying magic is more limiting than martial? You must be out of your mind. There is ' "Fire mage" just no such thing. That is something you put a limit on yourself. In fact, its quite difficult for any caster to go purely into a single element. The total spell prep and cantrips pretty much force you to have variety.
Need to change to a different spell? Oh, how many actions does it take to store your current spell and pull out the other? Oh, none, exactly.
Casters literally have spells that let them pick the damage element (Chromatic Orb for example).
You're likely only bothered because Fire is the most commonly resisted element and it disrupts your Firebolt spamming, because its a 1d10, pretty much doing damage equal to high end Heavy Martial weapons (with only 3 doing potentially more) except, it also scales so...yeah. There is that too.
Honestly, don't try to claim casters have it hard compared to martials.
Level 20 Caster "I can reshape the world, stop time and teleport through the planes"
Level 20 Fighter "I can swing 4 times"
Yes, how rough it is for casters LOL.
The variety of damage types exists because of how versatile casters are, "Oh that enemy is resistant to fire, let me use one of my other handful of cantrips. All you need is Chill Touch and Fire Bolt, and you're pretty much good. Neither even are based on saving throws and they scale well.
Not to mention that even if a caster can't do damage, they have spells that do a ton of other effects. If a Martial can't do damage they're useless in the fight.
Is it really any different then a caster who, like the martial, it never mattered until running into a creature with magic resistance or legendary resistance?
I’m fine with how it is. But they seem to be changing something in the 2024 update as features that overcome no -magical B, P, S damage is being changed to force.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
In what way?
In the way, that in the referenced example, it is impossible to ONLY choose fire spells and not have room for more spells.
Also, Flameskulls regaining their hit points in 1 hour is basically fluff. 1 hour....combat lasts 1 minute. So 1 hour would just be an enemy not being killed while everyone retreats an takes a short rest.
Mastery will motivate players to choose a different weapon so they can have a different master effect.
As for outside of that, the variety of magical weapon could be viewed as "conditioning" although I feel that is less intentional and a bias or lack of creativity on the part of the designers. Seriously, how many Magical Longswords, vs others. Magical Swords vs others. Is there even a Magical Glaive? outside of (Any Weapon) ? RAW
My initial point on damage resistance by specific melee damage type is because its so rare that a specific damage type
Immunity:
Slashing - 3 or 4 (not counting variations like "reduced threat")
Bludgeoning - 1
Piercing - 0
Not Silvered - 15
Not Adamantine - 2 pages
Not Magical - 3 pages (plus 8 or so individual with it labeled slightly different for some demons)
Metal weapon - 1
Resistance:
These are a bit more but harder to check since some are resistant to all 3, others are resistant to all but Slashing (Again, DnD loves their Longswords)
In general 2-3 pages for each melee damage type.
Now if we compare that to Magic Damage types:
I'll be going off pages in the search since there are more than I care to individually count.
Immunity:
Lightning : 6 pages
Thunder: 2 Pages
Poison: 36 Pages (mostly undead is my guess)
Cold: 7 Pages
Radian: 1 page (full page)
Fire: 10 pages
Necrotic: 6 Pages (more undead is by guess)
Acid: 5 pages
Psychic: 6 pages
Force: 4 individual monsters
Resistance:
A lot
So my point is that compared to elemental variation, Martial weapons are hardly utilized in their damage type impact, so why even have it (other than the previously mentioned Feats, which to be fair, taking it limits the player quite a bit on their own flexibility, rather just combine into a single feat). Hell from, a damage immunity perspective, its more valuable to deal with adamantine or silvered weapons than weapon damage type. Which is funny because I don't think they actually have entries for those in DnDBeyond, outside of a few magical weapons that "count as" but maybe one day when they make that....clearly not obvious decision....to let us HB Equipment, not just magical items.
*NOTE: I only used CORE RAW content in the list.
Agreed. Let me try to simplify my point.
Non-magical weapons in 5e are boring, because many weapons are the same as other weapons. Because weapons are boring, weapon users don't often pick up more than one type of weapon. I think this is boring, and could be better.
Cantrips and spells in 5e are less boring than weapons, because cantrips and spells have cool effects beyond the type of damage they deal. Because of these cool effects, magic users often want to learn many spells that deal different types of damage. I think this is good, and I think weapons should be more like spells and cantrips in this way.
I think monsters that have weaknesses and resistances to types of physical damage are not enough to make weapons less boring. I think these monsters just make weapon users collect more boring weapons, which is still boring.
I don't want weapons to be stronger (necessarily). I don't want an atomic bomb that automatically defeats all monsters. I don't want to "win" D&D (I'm a DM, I explicitly expect to lose D&D). I want weapons to not be boring.
P.S. I don't think magic weapons are a good solution to this problem, because the magic weapons that have cool effects tend to be very powerful, and it's hard to give your players more than one without completely invalidating your casters. I want weapon users to have more options, not more power.
P.P.S. You used the analogy of a bulldozer vs a Bugatti. I think that's a good comparison, but I don't think that's what weapon users have right now. Instead, I think weapons are more like a red Toyota and a blue Toyota. They're mostly the same, but the blue Toyota drives better on ~3% of roads, and the red drives better on ~3% of other roads. There is also a green Toyota, but if you already have the red and the blue there's no reason to drive it.
I think what you aren't really acknowledging is that there are pros and cons to these things and the current system is just trying to strike a balance between the two.
We want weapon types to matter, but we also don't want to have to carry around a golf bag. So they matter rarely. This lets you focus on the weapon you have specialized in (i.e. the magic item you managed to get) while only leaving you high and dry a small percentage of the time. That's okay, because for those particular encounters you can focus on doing other stuff - shoving, grappling, skill checks, whatever. Unusual stuff that stays interesting because you're not doing it in 50% of encounters.
It allows for flavor to exist for the weapons and the creatures resistant to some of them without making it such a big deal that you need to build your character around it.
It also provides hooks for future content and/or homebrewers. Personally, I like puzzle monsters and I use resistance/vulnerability a LOT across all damage types. And vulnerability often means something other than double damage. I could not do this as effectively if there was just generic weapon damage.
There are directly conflicting forces and mechanics here. You can't better the system in one way without making it worse in another way. I have not seen a proposal in this thread that is better than what we've got from all perspectives. It's just not easily solvable, if it's solvable at all.
I think Masteries will help, though. We will see how the final implementation works. I expect it to be fairly half-baked as the current system is, but the strength of this game is that enterprising DMs can pop it back in the oven and finish it to their liking.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
I also see it as a learning, so in the future you know that similar creatures might have the same defenses and plan accordingly.
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
If I'd been the one making the rules, there'd have been a general rule of thumb that stated that one resistance is fine, but if a monster has more than one, it should also have a vulnerability.
Blanket disclaimer: I only ever state opinion. But I can sound terribly dogmatic - so if you feel I'm trying to tell you what to think, I'm really not, I swear. I'm telling you what I think, that's all.
My data set is from DnD Beyond. I just didn't set the filter to include 3rd party content. (So I don't know what "limiting" you're referring to.
I "guess" because I'm not reading 36 pages of search results (I'm posting an opinion on a forum, not writing a dissertation). Also, it doesn't matter. I was just throwing out a point why that quantity of poison resistance is so much higher than the others.
The statement is irrelevant to the point.
Only have the free model? Huh? I was literally going over the ENTIRE DnD official library dude.
There are only 3 silver items when you search the DB. Not really any mechanic to tag it as "silvered" in the tool so you have to just write it down. Also uncertain if it can be a magic weapon or if it makes it magic. For example Adamantine Armor isn't eligible for Artificer Infusions on DnDBeyond due to is being classified as Magic.
That's a site issue, yes, but my underlying issue of resistances still remains. My point about silvered is that there are more monsters that are immune to non-silvered weapons than piercing / slashing / bludgeoning.
As for "Leaving it to DMs" then why even have a service or books. If DMs are writing the majority of the weapons, monsters, stories, why pay for anything. I'm talking about RAW.
As a DM I could simply get rid of the damage difference. Saying "DM could..." is a nothing argument, since a DM could do anything. I'm talking RAW.
I think this conversation has about run its course, but I wanted to reinforce this point because I think it's a big one. Homebrew really isn't meant to paper over big mechanical deficiencies that affect broad swaths of the game.
I say this as a DM that loves homebrew and does it all the time: it's unreasonable to expect a home DM to just up and design a completely new system that radically changes the way combat works. That kind of thing takes testing, iteration, ideally a team of designers working together. At that point, you might as well just be playing a different game. (And indeed, that is probably what I'm going to do once my current campaign wraps up. ICON looks promising.)
CORE literally a filter in DnDBeyond. I don't know why this is hard for you to understand.
What I used "I went to DnDBeyond, did a search. That's it. Partner Content is disabled by default, so I left that disabled.
We're on the official website for content, I used the official website for the content. This shouldn't be something you are having issues with. Are you just trying to brush away my data by feigning uncertainty?
My "guess" again, you're ignoring the core point, which is the amount of resistance & immunity of elemental vs physical type damages. The statement of "guess" is 100% unrelated to that point and is of no consequence, Also, it isn't as easy as you say since it isn't Adding 14 entries per page...etc. since not every entry is likely undead, so to be accurate I would need to go through and count each entry that is or isn't undead BUT, it doesn't matter, because it is still inconsequential to my point.
You're arguing against everything except the actual point I am making. Understand that please.
I won't say that they are entirely pointless, because there are certain monsters that have been historically immune/resistant to slashing, piercing or bludgeoning weapons because of their body types. As far back as 1e and Basic.
So to be fair, I'm not even sure what the 'CORE' filter even does. I was playing around with the 'CORE' and 'Non-CORE' filters, and there was overlap between the two, and some things that should have been 'Core' were appearing on the 'Non-CORE' and the other way around. So I'm not sure that particular filter is working in the way you expect it.
You also haven't answered one of the key questions raised, what sources do you own? That will effect the results, as only sources you own will show up in the search results. If two people try to conduct the same search with different sources available, they will get different results.
One other consideration that you've ignored, is vulnerabilities to these basic damage types. Bludgeoning damage is actually quite common as a vulnerability, while my quick search only had like one for slashing and none for piercing.
There may be a misunderstanding on how the DnDBeyond search engine works. It does not limit your search based on what you have purchased, so "CORE" literally everything WotC has included on DnD Beyond that is not classified as "Partner Content"
It only treats your ownership when you try to get details on a given item (monster, race, spell, etc).
I did ignore vulnerabilities, but the pattern still remains. Very few when compared to magical elements. Nearly all (all but 5) bludgeoning are select undead creatures. Vulnerabilities in general aren't as common as resistances or immunities so I didn't bother looking. Likely due to double damage having a much great unbalancing effect than half damage.
Yeah that's my bad, I forgot that's how it handles unowned content in the searches now. Interestingly they've also added a 'Partner Content' filter as well, which in theory should do the same thing? I'm too lazy to check.
I partially agree with Op and Mdhe (pronun?) that weapon damage types should matter more in the game if they are to matter at all. That's why weapon masteries make sense and improve the game for martials (except Monks, b/c evidently they eat dirt and enjoy it). I also agree that certain weapons should have special properties. Flails, for example, should be able to negate shields and spears should be able to do extra die of damage against charging opponents as part of a Readied action. The main issue I think a lot of DMs, including myself, have is that adding a lot of extra rules to weapons can feel intimidating to new players and most martials are built to be easier to play than casters. So I feel like most special weapon properties should be phased in at the DM's discretion rather than as part of default rules.
I find that extra rules like that are inherently optional. I just remind the players when they become relevant. "By the way, they have a shield, so your flail basically gets +2". Just like Attacks of Opportunity - I just remind new players that it's a possibility as it comes up.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
(I usually just say all the letters but however you're pronouncing it in your head is fine)
Agreed that phasing in advanced weapon rules over time would be the best way to do it. 5e's biggest strength is how easy it is to pick up, and I wouldn't want to compromise that. But on the other hand, the simplicity that makes the game easy to learn does work against it for long-term replay value. Having an established set of Advanced Weapon Rules ready to be phased in at the DM's and players' discretion seems like the best balance between accessibility and longevity.