Once you get to the CR 1/2 Cackler, fiends begin getting a damage resistance of "Bludgeoning, Piercing, and Slashing from Nonmagical Attacks". This makes the lowest tier fiends a legitimate challenge for lower level characters. But by the time you get to CR 4 (e.g., Babau) and higher fiends, this resistance is becoming pretty useless. Characters that are of a level to go up against these foes have magic weapons. Even the monk unarmed strikes are magical at 6th level.
Default 5E is low magic, and magic items come in a variety of shape or form. Unless a DM only hand out magic weapons, big chances are a tier 2/3 party won't have all it's members fighting with a magic weapon. Now if you think no party members should have a magic weapon by mid-level, it's up to you as DM not to hand out any. But i think it's reasonable to assume that a party that reach level 6+ has acquired at least 1 magic weapon.
It can be frustrating for high level martial classes to not be able to contribute significantly in combat, and they're the ones affected by such resistance.
By tier 2, most certainly tier 3, every single martial class would have common items, and that includes a moon touched sword, which is a magical weapon. I always run a low availability magic campaign. But by 6th or 7th level every single class is going to have some access to some item (or feature), that does magical martial damage, which renders that bit of monster manual fiend text moot. It is better to simply remove the word "non-magical" from that text.
There is absolutely no default that says they have to be granted a magical weapon by any level. Moon Touched Swords weren’t even introduced until Xanathars, prior to that there were no common rarity magical weapons in the game
By tier 2, most certainly tier 3, every single martial class would have common items, and that includes a moon touched sword, which is a magical weapon.
Why do you assume every single one would have a magic weapon? I ran plenty of games and not all magic items were weapons, wether homebrew or published adventures. While they most likely will each have acquired at least a magic item, it doesn't necessarily mean it will be a weapon. Players don't decide magic items type, DM do. If in your campaign everyone has magic weapons by then it's fine, but not everyone will do though i guarantee you.
Once you get to the CR 1/2 Cackler, fiends begin getting a damage resistance of "Bludgeoning, Piercing, and Slashing from Nonmagical Attacks". This makes the lowest tier fiends a legitimate challenge for lower level characters. But by the time you get to CR 4 (e.g., Babau) and higher fiends, this resistance is becoming pretty useless. Characters that are of a level to go up against these foes have magic weapons. Even the monk unarmed strikes are magical at 6th level.
Default 5E is low magic, and magic items come in a variety of shape or form. Unless a DM only hand out magic weapons, big chances are a tier 2/3 party won't have all it's members fighting with a magic weapon. Now if you think no party members should have a magic weapon by mid-level, it's up to you as DM not to hand out any. But i think it's reasonable to assume that a party that reach level 6+ has acquired at least 1 magic weapon.
It can be frustrating for high level martial classes to not be able to contribute significantly in combat, and they're the ones affected by such resistance.
By tier 2, most certainly tier 3, every single martial class would have common items, and that includes a moon touched sword, which is a magical weapon. I always run a low availability magic campaign. But by 6th or 7th level every single class is going to have some access to some item (or feature), that does magical martial damage, which renders that bit of monster manual fiend text moot. It is better to simply remove the word "non-magical" from that text.
There is absolutely no default that says they have to be granted a magical weapon by any level. Moon Touched Swords weren’t even introduced until Xanathars, prior to that there were no common rarity magical weapons in the game
True. But given every post I see talks about Tasha's as a given, I see no reason to not expect a book that came out in 2017 not to be included. But let's assume it does not exist.
I don't know of any DM that will say to a fighter "yeah, your monk buddy's hands are magical weapons at level 6, your Pact of the Blade warlock buddy has been wielding a magical weapon since level 3, your cleric friends have been doing force damage since level 3 with Spiritual Weapon, your wizard buddies and sorcerer buddies don't care, but don't worry, some day you will find a magical weapon. Maybe at level 8, we will see."
And I’m practice I agree, as I run a “mid/high magic” table. But I’m also aware that the game wasn’t designed that way, and modify my creatures accordingly when needed. I don’t blame the designers for designing a low magic game when I want to play high magic (and let’s face it, most DMs and players want high magic, because magic items are fun). Basically, sitting and complaining about the design of the game is a pointless exercise when you are wanting to play a modified version anyway. If you want a modified (read: higher magic) game, you need to also design encounters to fit it
Once you get to the CR 1/2 Cackler, fiends begin getting a damage resistance of "Bludgeoning, Piercing, and Slashing from Nonmagical Attacks". This makes the lowest tier fiends a legitimate challenge for lower level characters. But by the time you get to CR 4 (e.g., Babau) and higher fiends, this resistance is becoming pretty useless. Characters that are of a level to go up against these foes have magic weapons. Even the monk unarmed strikes are magical at 6th level.
Default 5E is low magic, and magic items come in a variety of shape or form. Unless a DM only hand out magic weapons, big chances are a tier 2/3 party won't have all it's members fighting with a magic weapon. Now if you think no party members should have a magic weapon by mid-level, it's up to you as DM not to hand out any. But i think it's reasonable to assume that a party that reach level 6+ has acquired at least 1 magic weapon.
It can be frustrating for high level martial classes to not be able to contribute significantly in combat, and they're the ones affected by such resistance.
By tier 2, most certainly tier 3, every single martial class would have common items, and that includes a moon touched sword, which is a magical weapon. I always run a low availability magic campaign. But by 6th or 7th level every single class is going to have some access to some item (or feature), that does magical martial damage, which renders that bit of monster manual fiend text moot. It is better to simply remove the word "non-magical" from that text.
There is absolutely no default that says they have to be granted a magical weapon by any level. Moon Touched Swords weren’t even introduced until Xanathars, prior to that there were no common rarity magical weapons in the game
True. But given every post I see talks about Tasha's as a given, I see no reason to not expect a book that came out in 2017 not to be included. But let's assume it does not exist.
I don't know of any DM that will say to a fighter "yeah, your monk buddy's hands are magical weapons at level 6, your Pact of the Blade warlock buddy has been wielding a magical weapon since level 3, your cleric friends have been doing force damage since level 3 with Spiritual Weapon, your wizard buddies and sorcerer buddies don't care, but don't worry, some day you will find a magical weapon. Maybe at level 8, we will see."
And I’m practice I agree, as I run a “mid/high magic” table. But I’m also aware that the game wasn’t designed that way, and modify my creatures accordingly when needed. I don’t blame the designers for designing a low magic game when I want to play high magic (and let’s face it, most DMs and players want high magic, because magic items are fun). Basically, sitting and complaining about the design of the game is a pointless exercise when you are wanting to play a modified version anyway. If you want a modified (read: higher magic) game, you need to also design encounters to fit it
Even if you base your understanding of what a low/high magic setting is solely around the availability of magic items, that still wouldn't make D&D "low magic" by default. The DMG suggests that common and uncommon items are appropriate for characters of level 1+. Looking past the "availability of magic items defines what is a low/high magic setting" point of view, the DMG makes it clear that the Standard Campaign is not low magic:
Character Level
Low Magic Campaign
Standard Campaign
High Magic Campaign
1st–4th
Normal starting equipment
Normal starting equipment
Normal starting equipment
5th–10th
500 gp plus 1d10 × 25 gp, normal starting equipment
500 gp plus 1d10 × 25 gp, normal starting equipment
500 gp plus 1d10 × 25 gp, one uncommon magic item, normal starting equipment
11th–16th
5,000 gp plus 1d10 × 250 gp, one uncommon magic item, normal starting equipment
5,000 gp plus 1d10 × 250 gp, two uncommon magic items, normal starting equipment
5,000 gp plus 1d10 × 250 gp, three uncommon magic items, one rare item, normal starting equipment
17th–20th
20,000 gp plus 1d10 × 250 gp, two uncommon magic items, normal starting equipment
20,000 gp plus 1d10 × 250 gp, two uncommon magic items, one rare item, normal starting equipment
20,000 gp plus 1d10 × 250 gp, three uncommon magic items, two rare items, one very rare item, normal starting equipment
Once you get to the CR 1/2 Cackler, fiends begin getting a damage resistance of "Bludgeoning, Piercing, and Slashing from Nonmagical Attacks". This makes the lowest tier fiends a legitimate challenge for lower level characters. But by the time you get to CR 4 (e.g., Babau) and higher fiends, this resistance is becoming pretty useless. Characters that are of a level to go up against these foes have magic weapons. Even the monk unarmed strikes are magical at 6th level.
Default 5E is low magic, and magic items come in a variety of shape or form. Unless a DM only hand out magic weapons, big chances are a tier 2/3 party won't have all it's members fighting with a magic weapon. Now if you think no party members should have a magic weapon by mid-level, it's up to you as DM not to hand out any. But i think it's reasonable to assume that a party that reach level 6+ has acquired at least 1 magic weapon.
It can be frustrating for high level martial classes to not be able to contribute significantly in combat, and they're the ones affected by such resistance.
By tier 2, most certainly tier 3, every single martial class would have common items, and that includes a moon touched sword, which is a magical weapon. I always run a low availability magic campaign. But by 6th or 7th level every single class is going to have some access to some item (or feature), that does magical martial damage, which renders that bit of monster manual fiend text moot. It is better to simply remove the word "non-magical" from that text.
There is absolutely no default that says they have to be granted a magical weapon by any level. Moon Touched Swords weren’t even introduced until Xanathars, prior to that there were no common rarity magical weapons in the game
True. But given every post I see talks about Tasha's as a given, I see no reason to not expect a book that came out in 2017 not to be included. But let's assume it does not exist.
I don't know of any DM that will say to a fighter "yeah, your monk buddy's hands are magical weapons at level 6, your Pact of the Blade warlock buddy has been wielding a magical weapon since level 3, your cleric friends have been doing force damage since level 3 with Spiritual Weapon, your wizard buddies and sorcerer buddies don't care, but don't worry, some day you will find a magical weapon. Maybe at level 8, we will see."
And I’m practice I agree, as I run a “mid/high magic” table. But I’m also aware that the game wasn’t designed that way, and modify my creatures accordingly when needed. I don’t blame the designers for designing a low magic game when I want to play high magic (and let’s face it, most DMs and players want high magic, because magic items are fun). Basically, sitting and complaining about the design of the game is a pointless exercise when you are wanting to play a modified version anyway. If you want a modified (read: higher magic) game, you need to also design encounters to fit it
Even if you base your understanding of what a low/high magic setting is solely around the availability of magic items, that still wouldn't make D&D "low magic" by default. The DMG suggests that common and uncommon items are appropriate for characters of level 1+. Looking past the "availability of magic items defines what is a low/high magic setting" point of view, the DMG makes it clear that the Standard Campaign is not low magic:
Character Level
Low Magic Campaign
Standard Campaign
High Magic Campaign
1st–4th
Normal starting equipment
Normal starting equipment
Normal starting equipment
5th–10th
500 gp plus 1d10 × 25 gp, normal starting equipment
500 gp plus 1d10 × 25 gp, normal starting equipment
500 gp plus 1d10 × 25 gp, one uncommon magic item, normal starting equipment
11th–16th
5,000 gp plus 1d10 × 250 gp, one uncommon magic item, normal starting equipment
5,000 gp plus 1d10 × 250 gp, two uncommon magic items, normal starting equipment
5,000 gp plus 1d10 × 250 gp, three uncommon magic items, one rare item, normal starting equipment
17th–20th
20,000 gp plus 1d10 × 250 gp, two uncommon magic items, normal starting equipment
20,000 gp plus 1d10 × 250 gp, two uncommon magic items, one rare item, normal starting equipment
20,000 gp plus 1d10 × 250 gp, three uncommon magic items, two rare items, one very rare item, normal starting equipment
So (and this was missing from my earlier posts, but is captured here in eRaz0rHead's:
I used to DM 4e (and 3e etc.. but that's not the point). 4e was basically "everyone needs appropriate magic items for their level or the math breaks down"
5e throws that out the window. And I am thankful for it.
I've run a long-term campaign where the characters started at 8th without a single item, and are now 11th with one major magic item, and barely any other items at all. Not even potions. They were happy to get their hands on silvered weapons at one point. Then they didn't end up really needing them.
It's not a "low magic" game, in the sense that there's lots of magic usage. Just not much in the way of items. And no one is complaining.
And I love it. Because magic items feel a bit special again.
5e's standard is "low magic" when you look at the history of the game through editions. Prior editions did not have concepts of things like attunement (at least not universally), and the collection of an absurd number of magic items was fairly common in certain editions (like 4e, as eRaz0r explains above). the fact that this game "standard" has a comparable "low" version is based on this version, but the "standard" of this version is substantially lower than the "standard" or prior editions for a number of reasons.
Other evidence that 5e is "low magic" by default is the concept of attunement. Limiting magic items by 1) the number you can have active at once, and 2) by what classes or races can use them is a tactic to reduce the overall number of useful magic items in the game. In addition, from various places in the Core Rules and other Books you can find other "limits" in the design of the game for magic items:
From the DMG, Chapter 7, Magic Items Section:
The game assumes the secrets of creating the most powerful magical items were lost to the ages
"Even Uncommon items are not easily created"
Some powerful magical items are unique, only one exists
"most magical items are well-preserved antiquities"
Rare level items are not usually encountered until tier 2 play
Most magic items are not available for purchase
Common rarity consumables can be procured from certain NPCs, but often can't be bought off a shelf, a service may be required to obtain
Buying and Selling Magic items "might" be possible in a large city or temple (at DM's discretion)
Buying is similar to the art market in the real world (invite only auctions, tendency to attract thieves)
The DM can change any and all of this of course, based on setting and location
From the DMG, Chapter 1, Starting at higher level
Standard Campaign would not start a PC with a magic item until tier 3 play, and only then with uncommon items
From the PHB, Chapter 5, Selling Treasure
Selling magic items is "problematic"
Finding someone to buy a consumable (potion or scroll) is not too hard, but other items are out of the realm of all but the wealthiest
You normally won't come across magic items to purchase, other than a few common rarity items
From Xanathars, Chapter 2, Buying Magic items
Trying to buy a magic item (non-specific) requires a wealthy lifestyle, and at least 100gp and a week expended to locate a buyer (but can take longer). The items found are random, the price is variable, buying the item might trigger a complication, and trying to locate a specific item requires a check that is DC 20 and up for rare and higher items.
Now, a DM can handwave all that, allow a magic item shop in every decently sized town, and give players as much as they want. A lot of games do allow more magic items than would logically be derived from these descriptions. But DMs should also understand that in doing so, they are likely making the game easier for their players, and one of the ways that happens is giving magical weapons to PCs that override the resistances of monsters. Rebalancing the game will require changes to those monsters if you are going to keep it even.
I would like to add that, while the game doesn't really require magic items in order to function, because most of the creatures with resistances to non-magical weapons are not resistant to most magical attacks.
So sprinkling them into your game sparingly can give your low-magic players an interesting challenge. This can be an opportunity for that PC who isn't known to be a damage dealer to shine because they have the perfect cantrip for the enemy, and in this combat, the fighter or rogue has to take a back-seat for a change. That makes the game interesting and challenging.
That said, if your game is exclusively fighting fiends or whatever, then you ought to provide a means for those characters to either acquire magical weapons (via some quest is usually fun), or find some other way to get access to magic, or it just feels like you're punishing a particular play style unnecessarily.
All I was curious about was how you define "low/high magic" settings. Clearly you base your definition around magic items. But perhaps the fact that the designers categorize the standard campaign as being between low and high magic, suggests that the designers' definition of "low/high magic" doesn't revolve around magic items? My understanding of the terms is that they are more closely related to magic in general than to magically infused items. The reason I asked about this in the first place was because I was curious as to what made our understandings of the terms so different. I thought you might have seen it described in the books somewhere and that I had missed it. But it seems like it simply comes down to a difference in definitions :)
The diversion around low magic and high magic aside (which doesn't mean much in this context since Magic Weapon is a thing), I think the focus on weapons distracts from the fact that fiends generally are a pain in the ass to fight even for an adventuring party. They're generally immune or resistant to poison, fire and cold; in the case of demons, lightning resistance too; and they generally have some special ability or trait beyond having good defenses and making regular attacks. They're generally not nice to engage in melee but spellcasters tend to struggle too due to their most common damage spells being resisted.
All I was curious about was how you define "low/high magic" settings. Clearly you base your definition around magic items. But perhaps the fact that the designers categorize the standard campaign as being between low and high magic, suggests that the designers' definition of "low/high magic" doesn't revolve around magic items? My understanding of the terms is that they are more closely related to magic in general than to magically infused items. The reason I asked about this in the first place was because I was curious as to what made our understandings of the terms so different. I thought you might have seen it described in the books somewhere and that I had missed it. But it seems like it simply comes down to a difference in definitions :)
I base my definition off of more than just magic items, but magic items are what are pertinent to the discussion so that is what I focused on. And sorry if my response was overwhelming, it was also partially directed at some other replies to my earlier posts. I should have said so in that post. Also, to answer your question, I base my definition on 2 things: The rarity and power of magic items, and the rarity and power of spellcasters and spellcasting NPCs. I don't limit spells themselves in low/high magic, because that would negatively impact the balance of the classes.
It was a bit of a sidebar, but my intent was to show that the game isn't designed around all PCs having the sort of weapons or abilities that would counter that resistance, even at mid tier levels. If you exceed that baseline design to provide multiple and plentiful magic items and weaponry (and a lot of DM's do, including myself), then you have to either 1) realize you are making the PC's more powerful and enemy encounters less challenging or 2) change up the enemy encounters (via stronger "standard" monsters or modified ones) to match. I do a little of both, and it means my players regularly face multiple "deadly" encounters (at least by the books definition) a day because they are much better equipped than the "standard" game.
You can really see how they were pushing the "low number of magic items" angle with just how low the monster hit points are in 5e. If you have a party of 5th level characters who all have access to a magical weapon, then you effectively have to just double the number of hit points on everything of CR4 and up just so they survive a whole turn.
I don't really understand the philosophy behind it, but then I was playing in the days of +5 Holy Avengers. Finding magical items is fun, and players love it. It feels weird that they're meant to get super excited about finding a Shortsword +1 at level 7. But then, if they haven't found any magic items prior to that, I guess it would still feel special.
When i say 5E is low magic, i meant for magic items. When i mean low magic campaign, then it's more broad like how common are magic items, spellcasters or even magic spells in the world, such as street with permanent lighting, portal, planar traval as well as magical creature etc The higher the magic is, the bigger the presence will be in people's life, society and the world itself.
I consider that L10 PCs each having only 1 magic items low magic, despite it saying high magic but YMMV.
Again, that's starting equipment if you boot up a campaign from scratch. A PC who advanced from level 1 to 10 organically should have more than that suggested equipment.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
"most magical items are well-preserved antiquities"
The text got provided for you in this thread, and you still misquoted it. Amazing.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
"most magical items are well-preserved antiquities"
The text got provided for you in this thread, and you still misquoted it. Amazing.
I quoted it to start, and the difference between what I said above, and the following: "Thus, many magic items are well-preserved antiquities." is a matter of semantics, and the meaning changes very little from one to the other. I'll admit I shouldn't have put the paraphrase in quotes, I was in a hurry
As an aside, have I offended you somehow? you are taking a very aggressive tone with me that I don't appreciate. We are allowed to have our own opinions and express them.
"most magical items are well-preserved antiquities"
The text got provided for you in this thread, and you still misquoted it. Amazing.
I quoted it to start, and the difference between what I said above, and the following: "Thus, many magic items are well-preserved antiquities." is a matter of semantics, and the meaning changes very little from one to the other. I'll admit I shouldn't have put the paraphrase in quotes, I was in a hurry
As an aside, have I offended you somehow? you are taking a very aggressive tone with me that I don't appreciate. We are allowed to have our own opinions and express them.
I apologize if I'm coming across as aggressive. Confused and amused was more what I was going for.
I don't agree that the difference between "many" and "most" is simply one of semantics though. 'Most' means more than 50 percent. 'Many' is simply a relatively large number. If there are 1,000 magic items scattered across your world, 'most' means at least 501 of them are "well-preserved antiquities". 'Many' might only mean 100 or so.
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
"most magical items are well-preserved antiquities"
The text got provided for you in this thread, and you still misquoted it. Amazing.
I quoted it to start, and the difference between what I said above, and the following: "Thus, many magic items are well-preserved antiquities." is a matter of semantics, and the meaning changes very little from one to the other. I'll admit I shouldn't have put the paraphrase in quotes, I was in a hurry
As an aside, have I offended you somehow? you are taking a very aggressive tone with me that I don't appreciate. We are allowed to have our own opinions and express them.
I apologize if I'm coming across as aggressive. Confused and amused was more what I was going for.
I don't agree that the difference between "many" and "most" is simply one of semantics though. 'Most' means more than 50 percent. 'Many' is simply a relatively large number. If there are 1,000 magic items scattered across your world, 'most' means at least 501 of them are "well-preserved antiquities". 'Many' might only mean 100 or so.
You are more than welcome to disagree on this one point. I think in the context of the passage, they are basically the same. And i think there is plenty of other evidence in that passage, all of which I referenced.
I will admit that I based my initial comment on what I've heard from the forum participants who have had experience with other editions (I've personally had very little), but I did at least check the section on Magic Items to confirm that language existed that made the case for a lower-magic world (at least in terms of items). but from that little experience and what I've been able to find, 5e did try to drastically reduce the prevalence of magic items in the game world (at least for the default FR setting) compared to 4e and earlier editions. Attunement is a great example of that that they introduced, basically limiting a PC to 3 magic items of "consequence".
I don't even run my games in the FR, I use a homebrew, and it is substantially higher magic than the FR (though not as high as Eberron). Most of the bullets I cited would not apply to my homebrew setting. I also homebrew and/or modify a lot of my creatures too, to account for the greater prevalence of items (all of my PCs got a customized homebrew magic weapon or item at level 4, but a lot of creatures have resistance to magical weapons and spells due to the nature of the setting, so they aren't as useful in every case)
Now, inside 5e itself, there are low/standard/high
Thank you all for your conversation on this subject. I have read through everything and am not disagreeing with the details and line item elements of most of the replies. I have enjoyed the conversation, and my insight into the wide range of views on the subject of high or low magic settings is helpful, insightful, and rewarding. But on the broader topic, I think the magic item availability discussion either misses (or confirms) the point I was trying to make. I also obfuscated this point by emphasizing the acquisition of magic items at specific levels. Despite that, I stand by my assertion: Fiends are not special in this edition.
Dragons strike fear into the minds of my players (and their characters). Shadows strike fear into the minds of my players (and their characters). These creatures have stat blocks that reinforce this fear -- their strengths are devastating against an otherwise equally matched party and their weaknesses are conditional -- they are meant to be exploited when possible. And NONE of the strengths get discounted as "meh" by the players -- in our out of character.
But fiends? Their strengths become more meh the higher they get in CR because the PCs are heroes. They are the exception of the world in which they operate. Whether the world is low magic or high magic, the PCs are above the norm. It doesn't matter how rare a +1 sword is in your world. If it exists at all, it exists only to be found by the PCs. Because outside of the players at your table, it doesn't matter how you-the-DM envision the rest of the world operating.
Earlier someone mentioned that the resistance of fiends is designed to "prevent Commoners and those without access to magical weapons from doing any damage. It's a motivation for those sorts of people to seek out someone who does have access to those things."
D&D is a game for the players at the table. All of the mechanics are in place for only one purpose: to provide a structure and framework for the DM to challenge to the players' characters. High level fiends are to challenge high level characters (and to provide an opportunity to flee for lower-level characters). So every mechanic in a high level fiend stat block should be for the purpose of shaping the challenge to those characters. By high levels, resistance to non-magical weapons is not a challenge. Removing that entire stat line will not change mid and high tier encounters with high CR fiends. This is why I said the resistance is useless.
Thank you all for your conversation on this subject. I have read through everything and am not disagreeing with the details and line item elements of most of the replies. I have enjoyed the conversation, and my insight into the wide range of views on the subject of high or low magic settings is helpful, insightful, and rewarding. But on the broader topic, I think the magic item availability discussion either misses (or confirms) the point I was trying to make. I also obfuscated this point by emphasizing the acquisition of magic items at specific levels. Despite that, I stand by my assertion: Fiends are not special in this edition.
Dragons strike fear into the minds of my players (and their characters). Shadows strike fear into the minds of my players (and their characters). These creatures have stat blocks that reinforce this fear -- their strengths are devastating against an otherwise equally matched party and their weaknesses are conditional -- they are meant to be exploited when possible. And NONE of the strengths get discounted as "meh" by the players -- in our out of character.
If you have tips on making dragons terrifying, I'm all ears. IMX, the Dragon can be terrifying, in the right circumstances. Mainly those circumstances are : Significantly overleveled vs the party, and/or in their Lair, or the party can't pursue (no flight etc). I'm running a party through a campaign where there are several dragons working on something big, and the party are trying to stop them. The first, the party was unprepared, the dragon was Green Adult in it's lair, and it went poorly for the 8th level PCs (they were captured). More recently now they're 11th level they went up against a CR 16 Shadow White Adult. It opened with Shadow Breath. The warlocks went to town. It used Tail attack on a legendary action, and then a bite, and then on its second turn, the spell it was going to cast was countered, and it had like 30 hps left. It surrendered (and yes, this was in a cavern that it could not easily escape from, for in-game reasons. I thought I was doing the PCs a favor, but I had no idea how much of a favor it would turn out to be -- even if it had open skies, the range on Eldritch Blast is so good that it would never have been able to escape). Sure, the warlocks in this case were pretty well suited against this foe, but frankly, an 11th level Warlock with Agonizing Blast is going to tear through most creatures. The Shadow Dragon had resist (everything but force, radiant and psychic) and I should have frankly just doubled it's hps just to let it last more than a round.
I'm just saying, your experience with Fiends seems like my experience with dragons. Not many monsters remain scary at higher levels. Most parties have multiple means of out-damaging the Big Monsters. Action Economy is a real problem, and Legendary actions just don't really make up for it.
Basically, at this level, either the Dragon wipes the PCs in one round, or the PCs annihilate the Dragon in round two. I almost long for the big epic 4E battles that took hours ;)
I haven't had the opportunity to DM in quite a while so I can't offer you any tried-and-tested solutions, but I've spent a lot of time thinking about 5e as a system and encounters that didn't live up to my expectations. I think there's three issues going on in your dragon encounters, and none of them have a simple fix:
Force and radiant damage are broken and if you ask me shouldn't even exist.
Counterspell usually breaks encounters against spellcasters and it's not always possible to play around it.
5e's combat rules really don't account for large size differences very well. In my opinion melee attacks from huge monsters against smaller creatures should require a DEX save instead of using AC, and some of them should cover an area. Also, I think it'd be better to break up large monster into multiple targets, so stabbing its toes repeatedly just cripples it instead of killing it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The Forum Infestation (TM)
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
There is absolutely no default that says they have to be granted a magical weapon by any level. Moon Touched Swords weren’t even introduced until Xanathars, prior to that there were no common rarity magical weapons in the game
Why do you assume every single one would have a magic weapon? I ran plenty of games and not all magic items were weapons, wether homebrew or published adventures. While they most likely will each have acquired at least a magic item, it doesn't necessarily mean it will be a weapon. Players don't decide magic items type, DM do. If in your campaign everyone has magic weapons by then it's fine, but not everyone will do though i guarantee you.
And I’m practice I agree, as I run a “mid/high magic” table. But I’m also aware that the game wasn’t designed that way, and modify my creatures accordingly when needed. I don’t blame the designers for designing a low magic game when I want to play high magic (and let’s face it, most DMs and players want high magic, because magic items are fun). Basically, sitting and complaining about the design of the game is a pointless exercise when you are wanting to play a modified version anyway. If you want a modified (read: higher magic) game, you need to also design encounters to fit it
Even if you base your understanding of what a low/high magic setting is solely around the availability of magic items, that still wouldn't make D&D "low magic" by default. The DMG suggests that common and uncommon items are appropriate for characters of level 1+. Looking past the "availability of magic items defines what is a low/high magic setting" point of view, the DMG makes it clear that the Standard Campaign is not low magic:
Character Level
Low Magic Campaign
Standard Campaign
High Magic Campaign
1st–4th
Normal starting equipment
Normal starting equipment
Normal starting equipment
5th–10th
500 gp plus 1d10 × 25 gp, normal starting equipment
500 gp plus 1d10 × 25 gp, normal starting equipment
500 gp plus 1d10 × 25 gp, one uncommon magic item, normal starting equipment
11th–16th
5,000 gp plus 1d10 × 250 gp, one uncommon magic item, normal starting equipment
5,000 gp plus 1d10 × 250 gp, two uncommon magic items, normal starting equipment
5,000 gp plus 1d10 × 250 gp, three uncommon magic items, one rare item, normal starting equipment
17th–20th
20,000 gp plus 1d10 × 250 gp, two uncommon magic items, normal starting equipment
20,000 gp plus 1d10 × 250 gp, two uncommon magic items, one rare item, normal starting equipment
20,000 gp plus 1d10 × 250 gp, three uncommon magic items, two rare items, one very rare item, normal starting equipment
I consider that L10 PCs each having only 1 magic items low magic, despite it saying high magic but YMMV.
So (and this was missing from my earlier posts, but is captured here in eRaz0rHead's:
5e's standard is "low magic" when you look at the history of the game through editions. Prior editions did not have concepts of things like attunement (at least not universally), and the collection of an absurd number of magic items was fairly common in certain editions (like 4e, as eRaz0r explains above). the fact that this game "standard" has a comparable "low" version is based on this version, but the "standard" of this version is substantially lower than the "standard" or prior editions for a number of reasons.
Other evidence that 5e is "low magic" by default is the concept of attunement. Limiting magic items by 1) the number you can have active at once, and 2) by what classes or races can use them is a tactic to reduce the overall number of useful magic items in the game. In addition, from various places in the Core Rules and other Books you can find other "limits" in the design of the game for magic items:
From the DMG, Chapter 7, Magic Items Section:
From the DMG, Chapter 1, Starting at higher level
From the PHB, Chapter 5, Selling Treasure
From Xanathars, Chapter 2, Buying Magic items
Now, a DM can handwave all that, allow a magic item shop in every decently sized town, and give players as much as they want. A lot of games do allow more magic items than would logically be derived from these descriptions. But DMs should also understand that in doing so, they are likely making the game easier for their players, and one of the ways that happens is giving magical weapons to PCs that override the resistances of monsters. Rebalancing the game will require changes to those monsters if you are going to keep it even.
I would like to add that, while the game doesn't really require magic items in order to function, because most of the creatures with resistances to non-magical weapons are not resistant to most magical attacks.
So sprinkling them into your game sparingly can give your low-magic players an interesting challenge. This can be an opportunity for that PC who isn't known to be a damage dealer to shine because they have the perfect cantrip for the enemy, and in this combat, the fighter or rogue has to take a back-seat for a change. That makes the game interesting and challenging.
That said, if your game is exclusively fighting fiends or whatever, then you ought to provide a means for those characters to either acquire magical weapons (via some quest is usually fun), or find some other way to get access to magic, or it just feels like you're punishing a particular play style unnecessarily.
All I was curious about was how you define "low/high magic" settings. Clearly you base your definition around magic items. But perhaps the fact that the designers categorize the standard campaign as being between low and high magic, suggests that the designers' definition of "low/high magic" doesn't revolve around magic items? My understanding of the terms is that they are more closely related to magic in general than to magically infused items. The reason I asked about this in the first place was because I was curious as to what made our understandings of the terms so different. I thought you might have seen it described in the books somewhere and that I had missed it. But it seems like it simply comes down to a difference in definitions :)
The diversion around low magic and high magic aside (which doesn't mean much in this context since Magic Weapon is a thing), I think the focus on weapons distracts from the fact that fiends generally are a pain in the ass to fight even for an adventuring party. They're generally immune or resistant to poison, fire and cold; in the case of demons, lightning resistance too; and they generally have some special ability or trait beyond having good defenses and making regular attacks. They're generally not nice to engage in melee but spellcasters tend to struggle too due to their most common damage spells being resisted.
The Forum Infestation (TM)
I base my definition off of more than just magic items, but magic items are what are pertinent to the discussion so that is what I focused on. And sorry if my response was overwhelming, it was also partially directed at some other replies to my earlier posts. I should have said so in that post. Also, to answer your question, I base my definition on 2 things: The rarity and power of magic items, and the rarity and power of spellcasters and spellcasting NPCs. I don't limit spells themselves in low/high magic, because that would negatively impact the balance of the classes.
It was a bit of a sidebar, but my intent was to show that the game isn't designed around all PCs having the sort of weapons or abilities that would counter that resistance, even at mid tier levels. If you exceed that baseline design to provide multiple and plentiful magic items and weaponry (and a lot of DM's do, including myself), then you have to either 1) realize you are making the PC's more powerful and enemy encounters less challenging or 2) change up the enemy encounters (via stronger "standard" monsters or modified ones) to match. I do a little of both, and it means my players regularly face multiple "deadly" encounters (at least by the books definition) a day because they are much better equipped than the "standard" game.
You can really see how they were pushing the "low number of magic items" angle with just how low the monster hit points are in 5e. If you have a party of 5th level characters who all have access to a magical weapon, then you effectively have to just double the number of hit points on everything of CR4 and up just so they survive a whole turn.
I don't really understand the philosophy behind it, but then I was playing in the days of +5 Holy Avengers. Finding magical items is fun, and players love it. It feels weird that they're meant to get super excited about finding a Shortsword +1 at level 7. But then, if they haven't found any magic items prior to that, I guess it would still feel special.
When i say 5E is low magic, i meant for magic items. When i mean low magic campaign, then it's more broad like how common are magic items, spellcasters or even magic spells in the world, such as street with permanent lighting, portal, planar traval as well as magical creature etc The higher the magic is, the bigger the presence will be in people's life, society and the world itself.
Again, that's starting equipment if you boot up a campaign from scratch. A PC who advanced from level 1 to 10 organically should have more than that suggested equipment.
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
The text got provided for you in this thread, and you still misquoted it. Amazing.
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
I quoted it to start, and the difference between what I said above, and the following: "Thus, many magic items are well-preserved antiquities." is a matter of semantics, and the meaning changes very little from one to the other. I'll admit I shouldn't have put the paraphrase in quotes, I was in a hurry
As an aside, have I offended you somehow? you are taking a very aggressive tone with me that I don't appreciate. We are allowed to have our own opinions and express them.
I apologize if I'm coming across as aggressive. Confused and amused was more what I was going for.
I don't agree that the difference between "many" and "most" is simply one of semantics though. 'Most' means more than 50 percent. 'Many' is simply a relatively large number. If there are 1,000 magic items scattered across your world, 'most' means at least 501 of them are "well-preserved antiquities". 'Many' might only mean 100 or so.
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
You are more than welcome to disagree on this one point. I think in the context of the passage, they are basically the same. And i think there is plenty of other evidence in that passage, all of which I referenced.
I will admit that I based my initial comment on what I've heard from the forum participants who have had experience with other editions (I've personally had very little), but I did at least check the section on Magic Items to confirm that language existed that made the case for a lower-magic world (at least in terms of items). but from that little experience and what I've been able to find, 5e did try to drastically reduce the prevalence of magic items in the game world (at least for the default FR setting) compared to 4e and earlier editions. Attunement is a great example of that that they introduced, basically limiting a PC to 3 magic items of "consequence".
I don't even run my games in the FR, I use a homebrew, and it is substantially higher magic than the FR (though not as high as Eberron). Most of the bullets I cited would not apply to my homebrew setting. I also homebrew and/or modify a lot of my creatures too, to account for the greater prevalence of items (all of my PCs got a customized homebrew magic weapon or item at level 4, but a lot of creatures have resistance to magical weapons and spells due to the nature of the setting, so they aren't as useful in every case)
Now, inside 5e itself, there are low/standard/high
Thank you all for your conversation on this subject. I have read through everything and am not disagreeing with the details and line item elements of most of the replies. I have enjoyed the conversation, and my insight into the wide range of views on the subject of high or low magic settings is helpful, insightful, and rewarding. But on the broader topic, I think the magic item availability discussion either misses (or confirms) the point I was trying to make. I also obfuscated this point by emphasizing the acquisition of magic items at specific levels. Despite that, I stand by my assertion: Fiends are not special in this edition.
Dragons strike fear into the minds of my players (and their characters). Shadows strike fear into the minds of my players (and their characters). These creatures have stat blocks that reinforce this fear -- their strengths are devastating against an otherwise equally matched party and their weaknesses are conditional -- they are meant to be exploited when possible. And NONE of the strengths get discounted as "meh" by the players -- in our out of character.
But fiends? Their strengths become more meh the higher they get in CR because the PCs are heroes. They are the exception of the world in which they operate. Whether the world is low magic or high magic, the PCs are above the norm. It doesn't matter how rare a +1 sword is in your world. If it exists at all, it exists only to be found by the PCs. Because outside of the players at your table, it doesn't matter how you-the-DM envision the rest of the world operating.
Earlier someone mentioned that the resistance of fiends is designed to "prevent Commoners and those without access to magical weapons from doing any damage. It's a motivation for those sorts of people to seek out someone who does have access to those things."
D&D is a game for the players at the table. All of the mechanics are in place for only one purpose: to provide a structure and framework for the DM to challenge to the players' characters. High level fiends are to challenge high level characters (and to provide an opportunity to flee for lower-level characters). So every mechanic in a high level fiend stat block should be for the purpose of shaping the challenge to those characters. By high levels, resistance to non-magical weapons is not a challenge. Removing that entire stat line will not change mid and high tier encounters with high CR fiends. This is why I said the resistance is useless.
If you have tips on making dragons terrifying, I'm all ears. IMX, the Dragon can be terrifying, in the right circumstances. Mainly those circumstances are : Significantly overleveled vs the party, and/or in their Lair, or the party can't pursue (no flight etc). I'm running a party through a campaign where there are several dragons working on something big, and the party are trying to stop them. The first, the party was unprepared, the dragon was Green Adult in it's lair, and it went poorly for the 8th level PCs (they were captured). More recently now they're 11th level they went up against a CR 16 Shadow White Adult. It opened with Shadow Breath. The warlocks went to town. It used Tail attack on a legendary action, and then a bite, and then on its second turn, the spell it was going to cast was countered, and it had like 30 hps left. It surrendered (and yes, this was in a cavern that it could not easily escape from, for in-game reasons. I thought I was doing the PCs a favor, but I had no idea how much of a favor it would turn out to be -- even if it had open skies, the range on Eldritch Blast is so good that it would never have been able to escape).
Sure, the warlocks in this case were pretty well suited against this foe, but frankly, an 11th level Warlock with Agonizing Blast is going to tear through most creatures. The Shadow Dragon had resist (everything but force, radiant and psychic) and I should have frankly just doubled it's hps just to let it last more than a round.
I'm just saying, your experience with Fiends seems like my experience with dragons. Not many monsters remain scary at higher levels. Most parties have multiple means of out-damaging the Big Monsters. Action Economy is a real problem, and Legendary actions just don't really make up for it.
Basically, at this level, either the Dragon wipes the PCs in one round, or the PCs annihilate the Dragon in round two. I almost long for the big epic 4E battles that took hours ;)
I haven't had the opportunity to DM in quite a while so I can't offer you any tried-and-tested solutions, but I've spent a lot of time thinking about 5e as a system and encounters that didn't live up to my expectations. I think there's three issues going on in your dragon encounters, and none of them have a simple fix:
The Forum Infestation (TM)