Add (individually and separately) bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing resistance to monsters to the frequency of the "average" or "worse" tiers of damage types below.
Change "Elemental Adept" feat to "Damage Feat" (or add a damage type feat that mirrors elemental adept) to include option for bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing.
Purpose: To give more purpose and weight (pros and cons) to selecting a weapon type (eg. maul vs. great axe vs. great sword)
Reference
Here is a link to a table for damage/resistance/immunity/vulnerability for the Monster Manual (no Volos/MTOF)
Resistance Basics
Attacks that are not made from bludgeoning, piercing, or slashing are either resisted or made immune to. (There isn't a "non-magical fire resistance" categorization overlapping "fire resistance")
Attacks from bludgeoning piercing or slashing have 6-10 creatures that resist them each; and 2 are immune to slashing and 0 are immune to piercing/bludgeoning.
The way it is set up, it seems there are clearly tiers with some being clearly better than the other (# resistant / # immune).
Best Tier: Magical Weapons (B/P/S) (8-10/2); Force (0/1); Psychic (1/10); Radiant (4/0), Thunder (14/2)
I do not understand why Bludgeoning/Piercing/Slashing has a second categorization (non-magical and magical weapons) while the others do not. I honestly would rather remove that distinction entirely, throw out "non-magical resistance/immunity" entirely, and be more selective on adding Bludgeoning/Piercing/Slashing resistances/immunities across the board to average out the distribution of the others.
Why? Because I want someone who chooses a Maul over a Great Axe to feel more "weight" in their choice for going bludgeoning over slashing. For example, in my mind, an Earth Elemental has resistance to "piercing" and "slashing" but should take normal damage from a Maul. Similarly, an obese hill giant should have resistance to bludgeoning but not to piercing or slashing. These are just personal opinion, but you get the point. There is a difference in the weapon and damage type I chose. Kind of like how a black pudding can split on lightning or slashing damage.
Instead, the "nonmagical weapon damage" acts as a massive early hurdle (60 resistances in MM), but once the characters get their first early magical weapon... resistances become practically non-existant to players. I feel like this would balance out with casters, allow fighters multi-weapon proficiency to shine, and overall improve the experience. I don't know if this method is the best way to do it... but the spirit of it.
Elemental Adept Feat Modification
Along with stripping away "non-magical weapon resistance" and adding (separately) resistances to bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing to try and match the frequency of the others... I feel like changing "Elemental Adept" to "Damage Adept" and allowing Bludgeoning, Piercing, and Slashing into this
Monster Builder (Coming Soon)
I feel like this will be much easier to solve once D&D Beyond opens up the feature for their monster builder they have mentioned they are so excited about (not the homebrew creation, the monster creator they are making).
Your Thoughts
Has anyone else felt this frustration...? Any other solutions? Or are you fine with the massive initial low-level hurdle then smooth sailing after they get a magic weapon?
I've been thinking along the same lines. 4e made the choice of damage type more relevant than 3e, but 5e seems to keep the distinction among "physical" damage types even though there are few monsters for which it matters. Then think about how few monsters have vulnerabilities relative to older editions. I recall dragons used to have vulnerability to their opposed damage type, and now none of them do. Skeletons should be resistant to piercing damage, zombies and most plants should be vulnerable to fire, etc.
I think part of the problem is that unlike in previous editions, there is only one degree of resistance/vulnerability. There is no feature by which a monster takes 5 or 10 extra damage from a given type. You either take half/double damage from a damage type, or deal normal damage. Thus the choice to give a monster a resistance or vulnerability matters a lot more than it used to. It's similar to how (dis)advantage is generally more powerful than a floating +/-2 modifier. The choice of a DM to give advantage or disadvantage is thus more substantial, and has a larger effect on player behavior than similar mechanics in previous editions.
Thanks for the input! I'm not familiar with older editions but it makes you wonder why they downplayed resistances and vulnerabilities for 5e...
The answer is simplification. It took a lot of time and mental energy to keep track of multiple pluses and minuses. The bounded accuracy rules for attack rolls serve a similar purpose. They make running combat faster and less draining once characters start getting magic weapons and access to upper tier buff and de-buff spells.
My feelings is that you want to give more monsters resistance to make weapon choice more relevant, but then you add a feat to ignore resistance and boost damage.
I believe every melee player will simply end up taking that feat, and you'd simply be creating a feat tax for martial characters.
If you want to make weapons feels more specific, I would encourage you to look at what the second edition of pathfinder did, with their idea of extra effect on crit based on weapon type, as well as various traits. I'm honestly thinking of throwing the 5e weapon table and putting the pf2e weapon table in my games instead for this very reason.
Thanks for the input! I'm not familiar with older editions but it makes you wonder why they downplayed resistances and vulnerabilities for 5e...
The answer is simplification. It took a lot of time and mental energy to keep track of multiple pluses and minuses. The bounded accuracy rules for attack rolls serve a similar purpose. They make running combat faster and less draining once characters start getting magic weapons and access to upper tier buff and de-buff spells.
Agreed, but we can't ignore the pitfalls. As a player, I definitely think twice before acting when I know I'll have disadvantage. More so than when the DM used to set a -1 or -2 penalty. And just as well vulnerability in 5e is a much more serious weakness, hence it is rarely used.
My feelings is that you want to give more monsters resistance to make weapon choice more relevant, but then you add a feat to ignore resistance and boost damage.
I believe every melee player will simply end up taking that feat, and you'd simply be creating a feat tax for martial characters.
If you want to make weapons feels more specific, I would encourage you to look at what the second edition of pathfinder did, with their idea of extra effect on crit based on weapon type, as well as various traits. I'm honestly thinking of throwing the 5e weapon table and putting the pf2e weapon table in my games instead for this very reason.
I get what you are saying. However, the player just as easily could swap weapons/damage type to stick to ASI... just like a spell caster might not be able to use the same spell to solve every problem.
The feat would offer a sense of being particularly skilled with the weapon to find weak points in what would otherwise be resisted by sticking to that weapon type.
The practical reason is I think if you offer it to a caster, you offer it to the weapon wielder (under the proposed change)
I guess the main thing is I want to reward my players... Either for putting in a little prep to study a known Target (Rogue Mastermind) or know they muscled through it even at it's hardest (My Barbarian's preference lol).
I haven't seen Pathfinder 2e system yet but I've been curious about it since it's release, thanks for the heads up.
I'm all for increasing the variety of things weapons are capable of so long as it does not make running combat a mess of floating bonuses and demerits.
I am also wondering what people here think of bringing some degree of targetted strikes back via homebrew such that more monsters have weaknesses to AC at certain areas.
Pathfinder being pathfinder, the new weapon system does have a bit of floating bonuses. But I feel like if it's just this one system, it should be okay. All in all, it's usually one or two things for the player to remember, and martial characters tend to have less things to remember than casters anyway, so I personally feel okay with the added load.
But pathfinder included a LOT of traits, and I find most of these fun. Some of them interact with crits, some of them allow the use of shoving/tripping with small advantages, and I think one or two only have bonuses (such as a +1 to-hit if you attack the same creature twice on your turn, or +1 to damage if you use your second attack to target another creature). They tend grouped weapon by type, and have an added effect on crit depending on the weapon type. This added effect isn't unlocked by default, and is usually unlocked through class progression for martials class, so you could easily look at each class, and just add that feature to your 5e characters at the same level.
As for targeted attack, I think it's not in D&D's DNA, because it would usually turn to "I attack the weak part" instead of "I attack". Same thing, just with a few extra words. The system would have to be dynamic and include player choices to be relevant. Pathfinder 1e also had a targeted attack system, which worked by giving the target EXTRA AC, but if you did hit you would get some sort of benefit (temporarily blinding it). I didn't like that system, but you could try taking a look at it.
I must say, I love how 5e is streamlined, and I love how exhaustive Pathfinder is, so whenever I meant to introduce a new specific thing in my games, I start by looking at Pathfinder, because odds are this idea has already been integrated by a team of professional who playtested it, and worst case scenario it can always give some inspiration as to how to do things ;)
@ClementP Thanks for the tip. D&D isn't my only RPG thang, but I'll starting trying to find weapons and maneuver rules from Pathfinder online sources to compare and contrast with what's in 5e.
@ClementP Thanks for the tip. D&D isn't my only RPG thang, but I'll starting trying to find weapons and maneuver rules from Pathfinder online sources to compare and contrast with what's in 5e.
You may also want to check into earlier editions of D&D if you haven't already. In 3e, for instance, some weapons would give a bonus to tripping or disarming. There were feats that also extended the range of available actions for non-casters (though most feats were garbage). I'd personally recommend finding a copy of 3.5 Complete Warrior for inspiration.
@ClementP Thanks for the tip. D&D isn't my only RPG thang, but I'll starting trying to find weapons and maneuver rules from Pathfinder online sources to compare and contrast with what's in 5e.
I'm not sure how DDB feels about linking official sites to other rulesets, but Pathfinder is OGL, which means the entirety of the rules can be found online, for free. Weapons can be found here. The weapon Critical Specialization effect list describe additional effects that happen when you crit with a weapon of the corresponding type. Note that these effects are not automatically available, and each class has different ways of gaining access to those. This usually happens around 5th level for martial classes, I believe.
I’m trying to understand this better. Are you suggesting removing the ability of certain creatures to be immune to non-magical weapons? For example: vampires. If so, would that concept also extend to resistance to non-magical/non-silvered weapons? For example: lycanthropes.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I'm trying to wrap my head around the resistance system as I'm not really happy with it and may start homebrewing or tweaking monsters.
TLDR: Make the following changes
Purpose: To give more purpose and weight (pros and cons) to selecting a weapon type (eg. maul vs. great axe vs. great sword)
Reference
Here is a link to a table for damage/resistance/immunity/vulnerability for the Monster Manual (no Volos/MTOF)
Resistance Basics
The way it is set up, it seems there are clearly tiers with some being clearly better than the other (# resistant / # immune).
Thoughts
I do not understand why Bludgeoning/Piercing/Slashing has a second categorization (non-magical and magical weapons) while the others do not. I honestly would rather remove that distinction entirely, throw out "non-magical resistance/immunity" entirely, and be more selective on adding Bludgeoning/Piercing/Slashing resistances/immunities across the board to average out the distribution of the others.
Why? Because I want someone who chooses a Maul over a Great Axe to feel more "weight" in their choice for going bludgeoning over slashing. For example, in my mind, an Earth Elemental has resistance to "piercing" and "slashing" but should take normal damage from a Maul. Similarly, an obese hill giant should have resistance to bludgeoning but not to piercing or slashing. These are just personal opinion, but you get the point. There is a difference in the weapon and damage type I chose. Kind of like how a black pudding can split on lightning or slashing damage.
Instead, the "nonmagical weapon damage" acts as a massive early hurdle (60 resistances in MM), but once the characters get their first early magical weapon... resistances become practically non-existant to players. I feel like this would balance out with casters, allow fighters multi-weapon proficiency to shine, and overall improve the experience. I don't know if this method is the best way to do it... but the spirit of it.
Elemental Adept Feat Modification
Along with stripping away "non-magical weapon resistance" and adding (separately) resistances to bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing to try and match the frequency of the others... I feel like changing "Elemental Adept" to "Damage Adept" and allowing Bludgeoning, Piercing, and Slashing into this
Monster Builder (Coming Soon)
I feel like this will be much easier to solve once D&D Beyond opens up the feature for their monster builder they have mentioned they are so excited about (not the homebrew creation, the monster creator they are making).
Your Thoughts
Has anyone else felt this frustration...? Any other solutions? Or are you fine with the massive initial low-level hurdle then smooth sailing after they get a magic weapon?
I've been thinking along the same lines. 4e made the choice of damage type more relevant than 3e, but 5e seems to keep the distinction among "physical" damage types even though there are few monsters for which it matters. Then think about how few monsters have vulnerabilities relative to older editions. I recall dragons used to have vulnerability to their opposed damage type, and now none of them do. Skeletons should be resistant to piercing damage, zombies and most plants should be vulnerable to fire, etc.
I think part of the problem is that unlike in previous editions, there is only one degree of resistance/vulnerability. There is no feature by which a monster takes 5 or 10 extra damage from a given type. You either take half/double damage from a damage type, or deal normal damage. Thus the choice to give a monster a resistance or vulnerability matters a lot more than it used to. It's similar to how (dis)advantage is generally more powerful than a floating +/-2 modifier. The choice of a DM to give advantage or disadvantage is thus more substantial, and has a larger effect on player behavior than similar mechanics in previous editions.
Thanks for the input! I'm not familiar with older editions but it makes you wonder why they downplayed resistances and vulnerabilities for 5e...
The answer is simplification. It took a lot of time and mental energy to keep track of multiple pluses and minuses. The bounded accuracy rules for attack rolls serve a similar purpose. They make running combat faster and less draining once characters start getting magic weapons and access to upper tier buff and de-buff spells.
My feelings is that you want to give more monsters resistance to make weapon choice more relevant, but then you add a feat to ignore resistance and boost damage.
I believe every melee player will simply end up taking that feat, and you'd simply be creating a feat tax for martial characters.
If you want to make weapons feels more specific, I would encourage you to look at what the second edition of pathfinder did, with their idea of extra effect on crit based on weapon type, as well as various traits. I'm honestly thinking of throwing the 5e weapon table and putting the pf2e weapon table in my games instead for this very reason.
Click to learn to put cool-looking tooltips in your messages!
Agreed, but we can't ignore the pitfalls. As a player, I definitely think twice before acting when I know I'll have disadvantage. More so than when the DM used to set a -1 or -2 penalty. And just as well vulnerability in 5e is a much more serious weakness, hence it is rarely used.
I get what you are saying. However, the player just as easily could swap weapons/damage type to stick to ASI... just like a spell caster might not be able to use the same spell to solve every problem.
The feat would offer a sense of being particularly skilled with the weapon to find weak points in what would otherwise be resisted by sticking to that weapon type.
The practical reason is I think if you offer it to a caster, you offer it to the weapon wielder (under the proposed change)
I guess the main thing is I want to reward my players... Either for putting in a little prep to study a known Target (Rogue Mastermind) or know they muscled through it even at it's hardest (My Barbarian's preference lol).
I haven't seen Pathfinder 2e system yet but I've been curious about it since it's release, thanks for the heads up.
Ty for the input, much appreciated!
I'm all for increasing the variety of things weapons are capable of so long as it does not make running combat a mess of floating bonuses and demerits.
I am also wondering what people here think of bringing some degree of targetted strikes back via homebrew such that more monsters have weaknesses to AC at certain areas.
Pathfinder being pathfinder, the new weapon system does have a bit of floating bonuses. But I feel like if it's just this one system, it should be okay. All in all, it's usually one or two things for the player to remember, and martial characters tend to have less things to remember than casters anyway, so I personally feel okay with the added load.
But pathfinder included a LOT of traits, and I find most of these fun. Some of them interact with crits, some of them allow the use of shoving/tripping with small advantages, and I think one or two only have bonuses (such as a +1 to-hit if you attack the same creature twice on your turn, or +1 to damage if you use your second attack to target another creature). They tend grouped weapon by type, and have an added effect on crit depending on the weapon type. This added effect isn't unlocked by default, and is usually unlocked through class progression for martials class, so you could easily look at each class, and just add that feature to your 5e characters at the same level.
As for targeted attack, I think it's not in D&D's DNA, because it would usually turn to "I attack the weak part" instead of "I attack". Same thing, just with a few extra words. The system would have to be dynamic and include player choices to be relevant. Pathfinder 1e also had a targeted attack system, which worked by giving the target EXTRA AC, but if you did hit you would get some sort of benefit (temporarily blinding it). I didn't like that system, but you could try taking a look at it.
I must say, I love how 5e is streamlined, and I love how exhaustive Pathfinder is, so whenever I meant to introduce a new specific thing in my games, I start by looking at Pathfinder, because odds are this idea has already been integrated by a team of professional who playtested it, and worst case scenario it can always give some inspiration as to how to do things ;)
Click to learn to put cool-looking tooltips in your messages!
@ClementP Thanks for the tip. D&D isn't my only RPG thang, but I'll starting trying to find weapons and maneuver rules from Pathfinder online sources to compare and contrast with what's in 5e.
You may also want to check into earlier editions of D&D if you haven't already. In 3e, for instance, some weapons would give a bonus to tripping or disarming. There were feats that also extended the range of available actions for non-casters (though most feats were garbage). I'd personally recommend finding a copy of 3.5 Complete Warrior for inspiration.
I'm not sure how DDB feels about linking official sites to other rulesets, but Pathfinder is OGL, which means the entirety of the rules can be found online, for free. Weapons can be found here. The weapon Critical Specialization effect list describe additional effects that happen when you crit with a weapon of the corresponding type. Note that these effects are not automatically available, and each class has different ways of gaining access to those. This usually happens around 5th level for martial classes, I believe.
These are fully legal websites.
Click to learn to put cool-looking tooltips in your messages!
I’m trying to understand this better. Are you suggesting removing the ability of certain creatures to be immune to non-magical weapons? For example: vampires. If so, would that concept also extend to resistance to non-magical/non-silvered weapons? For example: lycanthropes.