If you've read the newest book, you may have noticed that creatures who previously had the Magic Weapons trait no longer have it. Instead, their weapon attacks deal some form of elemental damage. From the looks of it, the only two monsters in the entire Monsters of the Multiverse book who deal magical weapon damage are Orcus (when using the Wand of Orcus) and the Githyanki Supreme Commander (using their Silver Greatsword), and those aren't called out as being magical. Unless the monster in question is blatantly associated with a specific damage type, typically the magical weapon damage has been converted to force damage.
I was wondering what everyone's thoughts were on this. From one standpoint, it makes sense. Certain otherworldly creatures might appear to be hitting you with a sword or a mace, but that's not actual matter that's hitting you, at least not matter in any scientific sense. However, if you're playing in a campaign where you know you'll be fighting lots of enemies that used to deal magical weapon damage, getting resistance is now somewhat easier. To my knowledge, there are four ways of gaining resistance to magical weapon damage:
Bear Totem Barbarian
Earth Genasi from MotM (and that is quite limited)
6th level Genie Warlock with the Dao patron (only bludgeoning, it doesn't specify nonmagical)
Potion of Invulnerability
By contrast, getting resistance to force damage (if you've come to suspect you'll be facing that a lot) is easier.
Bear Totem Barbarian
Potion of Invulnerability
10th level Fiend Warlock
Brooch of Shielding
Armor of Resistance
Ring of Resistance
Potion of Resistance
Any 6th level Artificer can make Armor of Resistance for someone in the party, no shopping or downtime required.
I realize that getting any resistance from a source other than your race and class is dependent on what the DM allows, but this is worth considering if you're running a campaign where the party will encounter a lot of enemies who normally have the Magic Weapons trait. And this isn't necessarily a bad thing. Perhaps you want to reward your party for planning ahead.
The new release is just that, new. I'm not certain that it requires the level of deep dive analysis that some might put into it to determine its useability. Resistances are only as useful as the damage that they resist, and at some point, the PCs will become strong enough to overcome these things and make them moot. Which, I might point out, is the point of character progression and growth. A PC should want to get better at their profession, this is intuitively the way it works.
Monster selection should fit the theme of the encounter and campaign. If the monsters have an intuitive reason to wield elemental or force damage, or to have a magical weapon type attack, fine. I'm not sure there should be a good reason to re-invent your encounters because a new sourcebook was published. After all, the entirety of this new release is optional content, as is much of the core rules, as decided by the DM at the table. Lastly, the DM has the Freedom of Movement to add, change, include or omit anything in any particular statblock. No one is forcing anybody to use the new material. No one is forcing anyone to not alter the new material. Take it or leave it, customize or not, it's your choice.
Our time might be better spent trying to make our games more fun instead of pushing back against optional content that provides a negligible impact on overall gameplay. Pushing back on changes in a book that you've already paid for will not change the fact that you've already paid for it.
[/rant]
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness, and many of our people need it sorely on these accounts. Broad, wholesome, charitable views of men and things cannot be acquired by vegetating in one little corner of the earth all one's lifetime.” - Mark Twain - Innocents Abroad
I don't really understand what you are getting at. Players almost never have magical specific resistance that wasn't universal, and creatures abilities will always tell you if the effect is magical or not (unless its a spell in which case -- yes it is magical).
First of, as small correction: Any barbarian is resistant to magical weapon damage. Rage just says "you have resistance to bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing damage." It doesn't spesify magical or non-magical, so it's both.
And in this regard, the fact that these monsters (for the most part) no longer does bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing damage, that means all barbarians except the bear totem got a bit of nerf. How impactful this nerf is I can't say due to lack of experience, but seeing as these barbarians already had to deal with monsters hurling damage at them that they don't resist, I think they will be fine.
That said, I do think that in some cases this adds some cool flavor to the monster.
First of, as small correction: Any barbarian is resistant to magical weapon damage. Rage just says "you have resistance to bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing damage." It doesn't spesify magical or non-magical, so it's both.
Yes, and several other elements have the same language. Blade Ward, Undead warlock's Spirit Projection, etc. It really is a fairly significant nerf to builds that made use of these features, assuming that this is the norm going forward.
I'm surprised, honestly. Initially 5e sacrificed a lot of monster design for the sake of streamlining and simplifying combat. Having to resolve two damage types for each attack when resistance is involved (which can really add up as people check their sheets, look for applicable spells or features, etc.) seems like just the kind of thing they would have avoided before.
It does add some otherworldly flavor, but I'm surprised they went this way due to the complexity it adds. I personally didn't see a problem with a magical beast doing magical damage with its teeth.
If you've read the newest book, you may have noticed that creatures who previously had the Magic Weapons trait no longer have it. Instead, their weapon attacks deal some form of elemental damage. From the looks of it, the only two monsters in the entire Monsters of the Multiverse book who deal magical weapon damage are Orcus (when using the Wand of Orcus) and the Githyanki Supreme Commander (using their Silver Greatsword), and those aren't called out as being magical. Unless the monster in question is blatantly associated with a specific damage type, typically the magical weapon damage has been converted to force damage.
I was wondering what everyone's thoughts were on this. From one standpoint, it makes sense. Certain otherworldly creatures might appear to be hitting you with a sword or a mace, but that's not actual matter that's hitting you, at least not matter in any scientific sense. However, if you're playing in a campaign where you know you'll be fighting lots of enemies that used to deal magical weapon damage, getting resistance is now somewhat easier. To my knowledge, there are four ways of gaining resistance to magical weapon damage:
By contrast, getting resistance to force damage (if you've come to suspect you'll be facing that a lot) is easier.
I realize that getting any resistance from a source other than your race and class is dependent on what the DM allows, but this is worth considering if you're running a campaign where the party will encounter a lot of enemies who normally have the Magic Weapons trait. And this isn't necessarily a bad thing. Perhaps you want to reward your party for planning ahead.
The new release is just that, new. I'm not certain that it requires the level of deep dive analysis that some might put into it to determine its useability. Resistances are only as useful as the damage that they resist, and at some point, the PCs will become strong enough to overcome these things and make them moot. Which, I might point out, is the point of character progression and growth. A PC should want to get better at their profession, this is intuitively the way it works.
Monster selection should fit the theme of the encounter and campaign. If the monsters have an intuitive reason to wield elemental or force damage, or to have a magical weapon type attack, fine. I'm not sure there should be a good reason to re-invent your encounters because a new sourcebook was published. After all, the entirety of this new release is optional content, as is much of the core rules, as decided by the DM at the table. Lastly, the DM has the Freedom of Movement to add, change, include or omit anything in any particular statblock. No one is forcing anybody to use the new material. No one is forcing anyone to not alter the new material. Take it or leave it, customize or not, it's your choice.
Our time might be better spent trying to make our games more fun instead of pushing back against optional content that provides a negligible impact on overall gameplay. Pushing back on changes in a book that you've already paid for will not change the fact that you've already paid for it.
[/rant]
“Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness, and many of our people need it sorely on these accounts. Broad, wholesome, charitable views of men and things cannot be acquired by vegetating in one little corner of the earth all one's lifetime.” - Mark Twain - Innocents Abroad
I don't really understand what you are getting at. Players almost never have magical specific resistance that wasn't universal, and creatures abilities will always tell you if the effect is magical or not (unless its a spell in which case -- yes it is magical).
Buyers Guide for D&D Beyond - Hardcover Books, D&D Beyond and You - How/What is Toggled Content?
Everything you need to know about Homebrew - Homebrew FAQ - Digital Book on D&D Beyond Vs Physical Books
Can't find the content you are supposed to have access to? Read this FAQ.
"Play the game however you want to play the game. After all, your fun doesn't threaten my fun."
First of, as small correction: Any barbarian is resistant to magical weapon damage. Rage just says "you have resistance to bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing damage." It doesn't spesify magical or non-magical, so it's both.
And in this regard, the fact that these monsters (for the most part) no longer does bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing damage, that means all barbarians except the bear totem got a bit of nerf. How impactful this nerf is I can't say due to lack of experience, but seeing as these barbarians already had to deal with monsters hurling damage at them that they don't resist, I think they will be fine.
That said, I do think that in some cases this adds some cool flavor to the monster.
Yes, and several other elements have the same language. Blade Ward, Undead warlock's Spirit Projection, etc. It really is a fairly significant nerf to builds that made use of these features, assuming that this is the norm going forward.
I'm surprised, honestly. Initially 5e sacrificed a lot of monster design for the sake of streamlining and simplifying combat. Having to resolve two damage types for each attack when resistance is involved (which can really add up as people check their sheets, look for applicable spells or features, etc.) seems like just the kind of thing they would have avoided before.
It does add some otherworldly flavor, but I'm surprised they went this way due to the complexity it adds. I personally didn't see a problem with a magical beast doing magical damage with its teeth.
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