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.
... 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.
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.
Punishment, or arbitrarily is not very relevant to the point I was trying to make, I personally feel you are missing the bigger picture which is, a game like D&D has been and is still is being developed, and there will always be quirky things with the rules that may or may not make much sense depending on what you want from the game. Movies and books have plot holes too, and I personally love to point them out when I notice them.
After reading your posts, I am not sure I understand your argument. I still haven't figured out how "multi quote" works on this forum so forgive my only properly quoting the one above. Following it quotes will be bold text inside quotation marks.
"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."
The same argument applies to all damage types radiant, fire, and lighting all are hot and bright, but only Sunlight deal 20 damage and gives disadvantage on attack rolls and ability checks and while Sunlight deals radiant damage not all radiant damage is Sunlight pretty disappointing to learn Word of Radiance isn't the same as Sunlight but fun at the same time. I don't recall any official definition or description of any of the damage types. I would love to read them if you know of any.
"The important difference between those scenarios comes from the way the game conditions magic users to build their characters, compared to the way it conditions martial characters.
When you play a caster, the game encourages you to pick spells of varying damage types by making sure those spells all do different things. Ray of Frost slows targets down, Shocking Grasp prevents reactions, Fire Bolt has better range and damage than most other spells, etc. The end result is that most casters do not exclusively specialize in one damage type, even if they have subclass features that encourage them to use one type more than others. So a caster with only Fire and Poison damage spells who encounters a Fire elemental is punished, but they're punished for a series of choices they made in spite of the way the game is built.
Martials are not guided by the mechanics of the game in a similar way. Unless they are specifically given a magic weapon or other upgrade by the DM, most martial classes will play the whole campaign with the weapons they picked at character creation. And why shouldn't they? There's no reason to choose a Warhammer (1d8 Bludgeoning) over a Longsword (1d8 Slashing) for 99% of the contents of the Monster Manual. They even confuse the matter further by including the Battleaxe (1d8 Slashing), which is mechanically identical to the Longsword (unless you use encumbrance rules, like a sadist). The implication martials receive is this: your weapons are just for flavor. Choose whichever one you think is coolest, then don't worry about it after that. When a martial with only Slashing weapons encounters a Black Pudding, they're punished for something they have never had to think about before, and will probably never have to think about again. That's why the Black Pudding splitting mechanic is bad game design (in 5e, specifically) and the Fire elemental's damage immunities aren't. Does that make sense?"
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.
"You guys have really latched onto the word "punishment" here when the more important word was "arbitrarily". Damage resistances and immunities are punishments in the most neutral sense of the word. If you hit a creature that is immune to Fire with Fire and it doesn't take damage, you are unlikely to hit that creature with Fire again. That's all a punishment is: a response to a behaviour that discourages the repeat of the behaviour. Punishments by themselves aren't a problem; most game systems conditionally punish some behaviours and reinforce others. That's just learning to play. The problem with the way physical damage types are currently implemented is how rarely they're either punished or reinforced. This conditions players not to think about the specifics of the physical damage type they deal, so when they are punished for not doing that, it doesn't feel fair or comprehensible."
There are only about 200 out of about 3000 monsters with immunity to fire, and about 800 with immunity to poison damage that's pretty rare too. What ratio of "punishment/reinforcement" is acceptable/appropriate, and why are other ratios not also just learning to play?
"Let me present a thought experiment to you; you've just picked up D&D. You're playing a fighter, you're about level 4. You've fought goblins, orcs, maybe a few gricks or perytons, maybe even a lycanthrope or two. You encounter a Black Pudding, you hit it with your Longsword, and it splits. What about your adventure so far would lead you to conclude: "Oh, it split because I hit it with Slashing damage. I should hit it with something else."? Nothing you've encountered before has had a reaction to a specific physical damage type, and that's not surprising because there are only six monsters in the entire Monster Manual that specifically resist one or two physical damage types, but not all three. No, you're going to have the much more reasonable reaction: "Oh, it split because I hit it with a physical attack, I'm going to stop hitting it with physical attacks." That lack of readability is a problem, and it's caused by the fact that most of the rules and 97.22%* of monsters in the Monster Manual tell you that physical damage types don't matter."
Why would "Oh, it split because I hit it with a physical attack, I'm going to stop hitting it with physical attacks." be a more logical and reasonable conclusion than "Oh, it split because I hit it with Slashing damage. I should hit it with something else." Also I find it unlikely every martial PC in the party would use the same damage type weapon further more, "That lack of readability is a problem, and it's caused by the fact that most of the rules and 97.22%* of monsters in the Monster Manual tell you that physical damage types don't matter." pretty much proves, with the rarity of monsters with these abilities, that they are meant for special use cases so a DM/writer can use them in the plot, or get the players rocked back on their heels and shake things up. There are also other ways a PC can obtain this type of knowledge from books, guilds, taverns, locals... and many more.
Certain weapons do have certain extra effects (magic weapons which can be acquired many ways).
Cantrips have quirks too, want to use a bonus action spell and a leveled spell on the same turn, best think it through before you cast either or it may not go like you planned, are you using encumbrance, if so maybe you can't just pull out that other weapon or 7 that deals the appropriate damage type for this particular foe without some negative effect. Same as IRL want to hike in the mountains with a 200 pound pack, bet you can't log as many miles a day as if you had a 50 pound pack, but you would likely be better prepared for the unexpected. A butter knife may work for cleaning a small fish, but may not be useful if a brown bear attacks you. A Bugatti may make more horsepower than a bulldozer but it won't flatten that mountain of dirt very well....
Unlike books and movies, D&D says right up front make the game your own change the "rules" and "fix" anything you find wrong or broken. If you want the atomic bomb equivalent of a D&D weapon that deals max damage to all foes at all times in all situations make one and use it. Just because the rules say this foe is resistant or immune to the damage the weapon you have or is your favorite doesn't mean they are bad rules, they just may not be rules you want to use. I feel there is a lot of value in the small but significant impact damage types can have for players in D&D, same for different types of spell damage radiant, lightning, daylight could be lumped together but for me the game would suffer if they were. I find nuances like these makes the game much better, so long as I keep from metagaming after playing so many editions for so many years.
I embrace these things, and if you can't have a look over on the DM's Guild, someone may have already done exactly what you will find to be a perfect solution to this "problem" ready to drop in your game.
D&D was meant to be played not won.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
CENSORSHIP IS THE TOOL OF COWARDS and WANNA BE TYRANTS.
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.
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.
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.
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 _options_, not _power_.
That makes sense thanks for the clarification.
My thoughts:
Plain weapons in D&D just really are not going to be much more than flavor once you get into the same damage type/range due to the nature of the game. It is that way IRL just not to the extent it is in a game. For many(most?) D&D games/settings magic is common and superior to mundane weapons. Like firearms made swords and bows far less used and swords and bows made sticks and rocks less used IRL.
A +1 weapon is pretty significant up grade alone, but instead use the same damage die and add the damage type of your choice and it gets fun but isn't OP
There are plenty of low level magic weapons that deal radiant, poison, acid, fire, et al damages which are in many cases better than a cantrip to to dealing 2 damage types 1 from the weapon and one from the magic, one of my PC's has the Devotee's Censer from Tasha's that is a magic a flail that deals 1d8 bludgeoning + 1d8 radiant and a healing buff once per day it is a rare item and requires attunement for clerics and paladins I think they got it around level 6.
They can be bought, found, loot, gifts....Granted most are not in the free or core books but in other books like Xanathar's, Tasha's, and other source/adventure books, but that has always been how D&D sells content. Individual items can be bout from the books for a couple of dollars each and is deducted from the cost of the book if decide to buy the book later. You can also make a home brew as well and there is a sub-forum dedicated to homebrew with several members that are really good with homebrew and ready to help. A few minutes with the homebrew tools and you can add any type of damage to any weapon and make it as fun as a cantrip, sticking to the car analogies instead of painting the Toyota's put a turbo on them or at least a good tune.
That is what is great about this game you don't have to buy anything unless you want to, but you do have to put a little time and effort in if you don't buy it.
I will say I have almost everything available in both digital and physical formats(most bought on sale for ~$20 a book so some patients and timing can save a lot) so it is not as limiting for me as it would be for others with less content, but I did start with the PHB and XGtE and didn't feel the need for anything more until I started to DM.
It kinda feels like this is more of an argument for more magic weapons in the Core rules/SRD et al, than anything really wrong with the game to me as there are plenty of weapons that do what you want, they just cost money if you don't make them.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
CENSORSHIP IS THE TOOL OF COWARDS and WANNA BE TYRANTS.
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.
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.
You said "*NOTE: I only used CORE RAW content in the list." that is limiting the data set.
Please define "CORE RAW"
Is it all official content on DDB or just what you own (if so what do you own), or just the core rule books (PHB, DMG, & MM) or those plus some others?
This will help with this discussion.
You don't have to guess, just count entries on the first page, there are 20, then subtract 1 from the total number of pages and multiply by 20 then add the entries on the last page and there is the total. Just a few click on the old calculator and no more guessing.
Example 367 pages with 14 entries on the last page= 366*20=732, 732+14=746 entries for this imaginary search which would give us a simple check sum to see if we are looking at the same material.
As far as RAW HB and what the DM could do : Most of the weapons and monsters started out as HB at some point before they were published.
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.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
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 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.
Punishment, or arbitrarily is not very relevant to the point I was trying to make, I personally feel you are missing the bigger picture which is, a game like D&D has been and is still is being developed, and there will always be quirky things with the rules that may or may not make much sense depending on what you want from the game. Movies and books have plot holes too, and I personally love to point them out when I notice them.
After reading your posts, I am not sure I understand your argument. I still haven't figured out how "multi quote" works on this forum so forgive my only properly quoting the one above. Following it quotes will be bold text inside quotation marks.
"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."
The same argument applies to all damage types radiant, fire, and lighting all are hot and bright, but only Sunlight deal 20 damage and gives disadvantage on attack rolls and ability checks and while Sunlight deals radiant damage not all radiant damage is Sunlight pretty disappointing to learn Word of Radiance isn't the same as Sunlight but fun at the same time. I don't recall any official definition or description of any of the damage types. I would love to read them if you know of any.
"The important difference between those scenarios comes from the way the game conditions magic users to build their characters, compared to the way it conditions martial characters.
When you play a caster, the game encourages you to pick spells of varying damage types by making sure those spells all do different things. Ray of Frost slows targets down, Shocking Grasp prevents reactions, Fire Bolt has better range and damage than most other spells, etc. The end result is that most casters do not exclusively specialize in one damage type, even if they have subclass features that encourage them to use one type more than others. So a caster with only Fire and Poison damage spells who encounters a Fire elemental is punished, but they're punished for a series of choices they made in spite of the way the game is built.
Martials are not guided by the mechanics of the game in a similar way. Unless they are specifically given a magic weapon or other upgrade by the DM, most martial classes will play the whole campaign with the weapons they picked at character creation. And why shouldn't they? There's no reason to choose a Warhammer (1d8 Bludgeoning) over a Longsword (1d8 Slashing) for 99% of the contents of the Monster Manual. They even confuse the matter further by including the Battleaxe (1d8 Slashing), which is mechanically identical to the Longsword (unless you use encumbrance rules, like a sadist). The implication martials receive is this: your weapons are just for flavor. Choose whichever one you think is coolest, then don't worry about it after that. When a martial with only Slashing weapons encounters a Black Pudding, they're punished for something they have never had to think about before, and will probably never have to think about again. That's why the Black Pudding splitting mechanic is bad game design (in 5e, specifically) and the Fire elemental's damage immunities aren't. Does that make sense?"
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.
"You guys have really latched onto the word "punishment" here when the more important word was "arbitrarily". Damage resistances and immunities are punishments in the most neutral sense of the word. If you hit a creature that is immune to Fire with Fire and it doesn't take damage, you are unlikely to hit that creature with Fire again. That's all a punishment is: a response to a behaviour that discourages the repeat of the behaviour. Punishments by themselves aren't a problem; most game systems conditionally punish some behaviours and reinforce others. That's just learning to play. The problem with the way physical damage types are currently implemented is how rarely they're either punished or reinforced. This conditions players not to think about the specifics of the physical damage type they deal, so when they are punished for not doing that, it doesn't feel fair or comprehensible."
There are only about 200 out of about 3000 monsters with immunity to fire, and about 800 with immunity to poison damage that's pretty rare too. What ratio of "punishment/reinforcement" is acceptable/appropriate, and why are other ratios not also just learning to play?
"Let me present a thought experiment to you; you've just picked up D&D. You're playing a fighter, you're about level 4. You've fought goblins, orcs, maybe a few gricks or perytons, maybe even a lycanthrope or two. You encounter a Black Pudding, you hit it with your Longsword, and it splits. What about your adventure so far would lead you to conclude: "Oh, it split because I hit it with Slashing damage. I should hit it with something else."? Nothing you've encountered before has had a reaction to a specific physical damage type, and that's not surprising because there are only six monsters in the entire Monster Manual that specifically resist one or two physical damage types, but not all three. No, you're going to have the much more reasonable reaction: "Oh, it split because I hit it with a physical attack, I'm going to stop hitting it with physical attacks." That lack of readability is a problem, and it's caused by the fact that most of the rules and 97.22%* of monsters in the Monster Manual tell you that physical damage types don't matter."
Why would "Oh, it split because I hit it with a physical attack, I'm going to stop hitting it with physical attacks." be a more logical and reasonable conclusion than "Oh, it split because I hit it with Slashing damage. I should hit it with something else." Also I find it unlikely every martial PC in the party would use the same damage type weapon further more, "That lack of readability is a problem, and it's caused by the fact that most of the rules and 97.22%* of monsters in the Monster Manual tell you that physical damage types don't matter." pretty much proves, with the rarity of monsters with these abilities, that they are meant for special use cases so a DM/writer can use them in the plot, or get the players rocked back on their heels and shake things up. There are also other ways a PC can obtain this type of knowledge from books, guilds, taverns, locals... and many more.
Certain weapons do have certain extra effects (magic weapons which can be acquired many ways).
Cantrips have quirks too, want to use a bonus action spell and a leveled spell on the same turn, best think it through before you cast either or it may not go like you planned, are you using encumbrance, if so maybe you can't just pull out that other weapon or 7 that deals the appropriate damage type for this particular foe without some negative effect. Same as IRL want to hike in the mountains with a 200 pound pack, bet you can't log as many miles a day as if you had a 50 pound pack, but you would likely be better prepared for the unexpected. A butter knife may work for cleaning a small fish, but may not be useful if a brown bear attacks you. A Bugatti may make more horsepower than a bulldozer but it won't flatten that mountain of dirt very well....
Unlike books and movies, D&D says right up front make the game your own change the "rules" and "fix" anything you find wrong or broken. If you want the atomic bomb equivalent of a D&D weapon that deals max damage to all foes at all times in all situations make one and use it. Just because the rules say this foe is resistant or immune to the damage the weapon you have or is your favorite doesn't mean they are bad rules, they just may not be rules you want to use. I feel there is a lot of value in the small but significant impact damage types can have for players in D&D, same for different types of spell damage radiant, lightning, daylight could be lumped together but for me the game would suffer if they were. I find nuances like these makes the game much better, so long as I keep from metagaming after playing so many editions for so many years.
I embrace these things, and if you can't have a look over on the DM's Guild, someone may have already done exactly what you will find to be a perfect solution to this "problem" ready to drop in your game.
D&D was meant to be played not won.
CENSORSHIP IS THE TOOL OF COWARDS and WANNA BE TYRANTS.
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.
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.
CENSORSHIP IS THE TOOL OF COWARDS and WANNA BE TYRANTS.
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.
That makes sense thanks for the clarification.
My thoughts:
Plain weapons in D&D just really are not going to be much more than flavor once you get into the same damage type/range due to the nature of the game. It is that way IRL just not to the extent it is in a game. For many(most?) D&D games/settings magic is common and superior to mundane weapons. Like firearms made swords and bows far less used and swords and bows made sticks and rocks less used IRL.
A +1 weapon is pretty significant up grade alone, but instead use the same damage die and add the damage type of your choice and it gets fun but isn't OP
There are plenty of low level magic weapons that deal radiant, poison, acid, fire, et al damages which are in many cases better than a cantrip to to dealing 2 damage types 1 from the weapon and one from the magic, one of my PC's has the Devotee's Censer from Tasha's that is a magic a flail that deals 1d8 bludgeoning + 1d8 radiant and a healing buff once per day it is a rare item and requires attunement for clerics and paladins I think they got it around level 6.
They can be bought, found, loot, gifts....Granted most are not in the free or core books but in other books like Xanathar's, Tasha's, and other source/adventure books, but that has always been how D&D sells content. Individual items can be bout from the books for a couple of dollars each and is deducted from the cost of the book if decide to buy the book later. You can also make a home brew as well and there is a sub-forum dedicated to homebrew with several members that are really good with homebrew and ready to help. A few minutes with the homebrew tools and you can add any type of damage to any weapon and make it as fun as a cantrip, sticking to the car analogies instead of painting the Toyota's put a turbo on them or at least a good tune.
That is what is great about this game you don't have to buy anything unless you want to, but you do have to put a little time and effort in if you don't buy it.
I will say I have almost everything available in both digital and physical formats(most bought on sale for ~$20 a book so some patients and timing can save a lot) so it is not as limiting for me as it would be for others with less content, but I did start with the PHB and XGtE and didn't feel the need for anything more until I started to DM.
It kinda feels like this is more of an argument for more magic weapons in the Core rules/SRD et al, than anything really wrong with the game to me as there are plenty of weapons that do what you want, they just cost money if you don't make them.
CENSORSHIP IS THE TOOL OF COWARDS and WANNA BE TYRANTS.
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
Well said @scatterbraind. I agree in D&D when I feel limited I try to look at those limitations as opportunities rather than restrictions.
CENSORSHIP IS THE TOOL OF COWARDS and WANNA BE TYRANTS.
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.
You said "*NOTE: I only used CORE RAW content in the list." that is limiting the data set.
Please define "CORE RAW"
Is it all official content on DDB or just what you own (if so what do you own), or just the core rule books (PHB, DMG, & MM) or those plus some others?
This will help with this discussion.
You don't have to guess, just count entries on the first page, there are 20, then subtract 1 from the total number of pages and multiply by 20 then add the entries on the last page and there is the total. Just a few click on the old calculator and no more guessing.
Example 367 pages with 14 entries on the last page= 366*20=732, 732+14=746 entries for this imaginary search which would give us a simple check sum to see if we are looking at the same material.
As far as RAW HB and what the DM could do : Most of the weapons and monsters started out as HB at some point before they were published.
RAW says the DM, could.
CENSORSHIP IS THE TOOL OF COWARDS and WANNA BE TYRANTS.
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.