Apologies if this has already been discussed to death, I didn’t see it quickly. How do people feel about Monsters having their regular weapon damage (e.g. Claws, Slashing) replaced by Force Damage, when in 5e and every edition prior it was Magical Weaponry and sometimes had a specific Magic Bonus for determine what resistance or immunity it could ignore? For myself, I really don’t like it. Honestly, I wish you had Resistance up to X Magical Bonus, or possibly even Immunity depending how on the Monster. But what’s the consensus? Was this already revealed via playtest results?
Apologies if this has already been discussed to death, I didn’t see it quickly. How do people feel about Monsters having their regular weapon damage (e.g. Claws, Slashing) replaced by Force Damage, when in 5e and every edition prior it was Magical Weaponry and sometimes had a specific Magic Bonus for determine what resistance or immunity it could ignore? For myself, I really don’t like it. Honestly, I wish you had Resistance up to X Magical Bonus, or possibly even Immunity depending how on the Monster. But what’s the consensus? Was this already revealed via playtest results?
It was too much crunch in past editions, and resistance to non magical bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing which many creatures have in 5e becomes pointless around level 5 when most of your PC have a magical weapon or magic. I believe 5eR will just have those creatures resistance to all bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing damage. We may still see silver and adamantine overcome this resistance, but just having a +1 sword do it is boring.
Dunno, having all monsters eventually deal force damage really feels immersion breaking to me, especially after past editions. Too many changes can change the game so much it’s not really palatable for gamers that have played more than one edition.
Wait, why would monsters have to deal force damage?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny. Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
To clarify, when monsters have either Magical Weapons or have natural weapons that are effectively magical, they deal Force Damage. Same thing with a Monks fists. There’s a number of interesting changes within this revision (I feel 5e Revised is my favorite name for this collection of such) but the ones I actually like are pretty easy to quickly homebrew, while the ones I don’t like are pretty pervasive. It’s getting to the point where I’m not concerned about whether I will or will not pick up the new rules, but how their release will change things for those of us that choose to stick with 5e classic.
Is this a rule that you're proposing yourself? I'm a bit confused.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny. Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
Is this a rule that you're proposing yourself? I'm a bit confused.
Sorry, the Force damage bit seems to be hardwired into One D&D is what I’m saying. You can also find it within the Monsters of the Multiverse, which is vaguely irritating to me but fixable via homebrew. I suspect the new Planescape Book (and possibly Phandelver) will be the last items I purchase from WOTC, not including a subscription so long as the benefits benefit me as a 5e DM.
We are likely to see a lot more monsters with just higher health instead of resistance to bludgeoning, piercing or slashing damage and the monsters that ARE resistant are going to be special for it. It would be even better if there was variety between slashing, piercing and bludgeoning damage with some resistant to one but not the others. I would also LOVE to see a variety of damage types from magic weapons.
I don't see the problem. It makes things a bit simpler and more concise, and the only real drawback I can think of is Rage being less effective at higher levels. What reason do you have to dislike it?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny. Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
It makes damage type a little too uniform, which hurts my immersion, and it breaks 40+ years of D&D history. As I stated, I’m still not a fan of the tiered magic item bonuses not mattering in regards to resistance or immunity. I’ve enjoyed AD&D 2nd Edition, both 3rd and 3.5, had a brief fling with 4e (the creativity and world building were amazing) and have mostly enjoyed 5e. I am extremely skeptical of this change amongst others.
Damage type has always been a little too uniform, so I don't see this changing much. The differences between bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing are practically nonexistent, save for skeletons and the feats in Tasha's. I can see how it would hurt your immersion if you're imagining all weapons that deal force damage as just shooting short-range magic missiles instead of actually being used to physically hit things, but I don't think that's how they work.
Every single change is going to break years of D&D history, so it feels silly to complain about this specific change, especially about something so unintegral to the game as when force damage is used.
Magic items with higher to hit and damage bonuses do matter in regards to resistance. Because they'll hit more often and do more damage. Anything more complicated than that would just feel like extra bookkeeping, at least to me.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny. Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
Just remove the "magical" concept. Damage types are enough. So then we don't have fire and magical fire, just like physical ones. Then a few exceptions like werewolves getting full damage from silver or magical.
Monster should deal the appropriate damage type for the attack it uses. Claws with force damage? No way.
In fact removing this "magical damage" stuff some features like Barbarian resistance does not become useless at a certain tier.
I have no problem using more extensive resistances ignoring (in most cases) the "magical" thing so the players have to adapt using the appropriate weapon, instead "I have my +1 <weapon> so can do anything".
Then add the feature slayer which ignores resistances for some kind of creature.
The current "resistance/immunity to bludgeoning, piercing, slashing damage unless magical" mechanism has always been pretty awkward and caused issues.
At lower levels it either made monsters much harder than their CR would suggest or skewed things too much in favour of the Spellcasters in the party while the fighters sulked. But by level 5 or so it's generally expected that everyone had magic weapons anyway, so it became pointless and made monsters easier than their CR would suggest.
So I'm all in favour of getting rid of this. The changes so far suggest that some powerful monsters will simply have resistance to bludgeoning, piercing, slashing damage, but nothing suggests this will be a universal trait. A class feature or weapon property that changes damage type (to force, fire or whatever) will get around this, though hopefully it won't sideline fighters in favour of spellcasters too much.
Nothing seen so far suggests that monsters will arbitrarily start doing force damage with claws, so not sure where the OP is getting that from.
I don't find "Resistance to non-magical bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing damage" to be awkward. I think the wording is awkward, but not the result mechanics and effect on play.
Personally, I would just say "resistance to non-magical damage", without regard to the damage type, and bring back that creatures with this feature have "magical natural weapons" for the purpose of overcoming it.
And in the long run, what it really does, is put a bit of a barrier between Tier 1 vs higher tiers, that explains why peasants don't just gang up on a werewolf, etc. If you're before that barrier, then these creatures are a challenge to you. If you've crossed that career barrier (to higher tiers), then you've gotten past that being a challenge. Not really a conceptual problem to me.
I don't find "Resistance to non-magical bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing damage" to be awkward. I think the wording is awkward, but not the result mechanics and effect on play.
Personally, I would just say "resistance to non-magical damage", without regard to the damage type, and bring back that creatures with this feature have "magical natural weapons" for the purpose of overcoming it.
And in the long run, what it really does, is put a bit of a barrier between Tier 1 vs higher tiers, that explains why peasants don't just gang up on a werewolf, etc. If you're before that barrier, then these creatures are a challenge to you. If you've crossed that career barrier (to higher tiers), then you've gotten past that being a challenge. Not really a conceptual problem to me.
Since you do not see the awkwardness of this mechanic lets see if I can help explain it to you. You are playing a low magic setting and want magic items to be particularly rare. Lets also say you want to start out at a higher level like 5 because you want your characters to feel like epic heroes. As your players are leveling you recognize that almost EVERY MONSTER has this "Resistance to non-magical slashing, piercing and bludgeoning damage" which now means you HAVE to give your martial characters some form of magical weapon or it is going to make them feel bad being forever stuck at half damage. It doesn't matter if the story makes sense for the entire party to be running around with a magical weapon they will be. And once they ARE the monster's "Resistance to non-magical slashing, piercing and bludgeoning damage" is basically ignored and might as well not exist.
This is the problem. This is why it is awkward. Because it will force the GM to do things that don't necessarily fit the story AND once it is done the power budget of the monster is being taken up by an ability that doesn't do anything.
By simply removing that effect entirely and just making the monsters tougher, which they did with a lot of revised monsters in MoM. The magic item hand out becomes more freed up and the monsters can feel their proper difficulty.
I don't find "Resistance to non-magical bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing damage" to be awkward. I think the wording is awkward, but not the result mechanics and effect on play.
Personally, I would just say "resistance to non-magical damage", without regard to the damage type, and bring back that creatures with this feature have "magical natural weapons" for the purpose of overcoming it.
And in the long run, what it really does, is put a bit of a barrier between Tier 1 vs higher tiers, that explains why peasants don't just gang up on a werewolf, etc. If you're before that barrier, then these creatures are a challenge to you. If you've crossed that career barrier (to higher tiers), then you've gotten past that being a challenge. Not really a conceptual problem to me.
Since you do not see the awkwardness of this mechanic lets see if I can help explain it to you.
The fact that I don't agree doesn't mean I don't understand (and thus need it to be explained to me). I understand, I just don't agree with you.
You are playing a low magic setting and want magic items to be particularly rare. Lets also say you want to start out at a higher level like 5 because you want your characters to feel like epic heroes. As your players are leveling you recognize that almost EVERY MONSTER has this "Resistance to non-magical slashing, piercing and bludgeoning damage" which now means you HAVE to give your martial characters some form of magical weapon or it is going to make them feel bad being forever stuck at half damage. It doesn't matter if the story makes sense for the entire party to be running around with a magical weapon they will be. And once they ARE the monster's "Resistance to non-magical slashing, piercing and bludgeoning damage" is basically ignored and might as well not exist.
So, you're changing one fundamental premise of the game (magic level of the setting(s)), but unwilling to change another one (the need for magic weapons to overcome the resistances of certain creatures that will be plentiful in said setting).
I think I see the problem right there: unwillingness to make the second change that is a consequence of the first change, assuming you don't actually want those creatures to be extra tough due to the nature of magical rarity. Making such a change (magic level) has consequences. It's the burden of the person making that change to deal with those consequences and further changes.
Apologies if this has already been discussed to death, I didn’t see it quickly. How do people feel about Monsters having their regular weapon damage (e.g. Claws, Slashing) replaced by Force Damage, when in 5e and every edition prior it was Magical Weaponry and sometimes had a specific Magic Bonus for determine what resistance or immunity it could ignore? For myself, I really don’t like it. Honestly, I wish you had Resistance up to X Magical Bonus, or possibly even Immunity depending how on the Monster. But what’s the consensus? Was this already revealed via playtest results?
It was too much crunch in past editions, and resistance to non magical bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing which many creatures have in 5e becomes pointless around level 5 when most of your PC have a magical weapon or magic. I believe 5eR will just have those creatures resistance to all bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing damage. We may still see silver and adamantine overcome this resistance, but just having a +1 sword do it is boring.
In contrast, having a CR 1 specter take half damage from a Legendary +3 sword is also really annoying for all the classes that rely on weapons.
I would note that, one problem with just getting rid of non-magical resistances - is that a caster's summons or a Polymorph form is just as powerful as a weapon-using martial. Currently the game balance a higher levels uses non-magical b/s/p resistance to nerf Polymorph, Conjure Animals etc... since they deal non-magical damage vs your martial with a magic weapon that deals magical damage. To maintain that, we will still have the requirement for martials to get magic weapons just that these weapons will always have to do some other kind of damage.
The other problem is that tons of potions / magic items will have to be revised to prevent them granting resistance to force damage, as force damage will be just as powerful a resistance as b/s/p - e.g. potions of resistance.
I would note that, one problem with just getting rid of non-magical resistances - is that a caster's summons or a Polymorph form is just as powerful as a weapon-using martial. Currently the game balance a higher levels uses non-magical b/s/p resistance to nerf Polymorph, Conjure Animals etc... since they deal non-magical damage vs your martial with a magic weapon that deals magical damage. To maintain that, we will still have the requirement for martials to get magic weapons just that these weapons will always have to do some other kind of damage.
The other problem is that tons of potions / magic items will have to be revised to prevent them granting resistance to force damage, as force damage will be just as powerful a resistance as b/s/p - e.g. potions of resistance.
Ideally, those problematic and overpowered spells can be nerfed in other ways.
A quick search gives four magic items that can grant resistance to force damage. Not exactly "tons". And anyways, what's so scary about having to revise things? The whole point of 1D&D is that it's a revision.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny. Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
I don't find "Resistance to non-magical bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing damage" to be awkward. I think the wording is awkward, but not the result mechanics and effect on play.
Personally, I would just say "resistance to non-magical damage", without regard to the damage type, and bring back that creatures with this feature have "magical natural weapons" for the purpose of overcoming it.
And in the long run, what it really does, is put a bit of a barrier between Tier 1 vs higher tiers, that explains why peasants don't just gang up on a werewolf, etc. If you're before that barrier, then these creatures are a challenge to you. If you've crossed that career barrier (to higher tiers), then you've gotten past that being a challenge. Not really a conceptual problem to me.
Since you do not see the awkwardness of this mechanic lets see if I can help explain it to you.
The fact that I don't agree doesn't mean I don't understand (and thus need it to be explained to me). I understand, I just don't agree with you.
You are playing a low magic setting and want magic items to be particularly rare. Lets also say you want to start out at a higher level like 5 because you want your characters to feel like epic heroes. As your players are leveling you recognize that almost EVERY MONSTER has this "Resistance to non-magical slashing, piercing and bludgeoning damage" which now means you HAVE to give your martial characters some form of magical weapon or it is going to make them feel bad being forever stuck at half damage. It doesn't matter if the story makes sense for the entire party to be running around with a magical weapon they will be. And once they ARE the monster's "Resistance to non-magical slashing, piercing and bludgeoning damage" is basically ignored and might as well not exist.
So, you're changing one fundamental premise of the game (magic level of the setting(s)), but unwilling to change another one (the need for magic weapons to overcome the resistances of certain creatures that will be plentiful in said setting).
I think I see the problem right there: unwillingness to make the second change that is a consequence of the first change, assuming you don't actually want those creatures to be extra tough due to the nature of magical rarity. Making such a change (magic level) has consequences. It's the burden of the person making that change to deal with those consequences and further changes.
Changing magical levels isn't an actual change. The various magical levels and access to magical weapons are in the DMG as dependent on the DM and the DM's Ruling of the settings. High fantasy with high magic is as valid as "low magic". It isn't a CHANGE it is just one of the many ways the game SAYS you can play it, but you can't as is currently. Because of the way the Magical weapon rules work the way the game advertises itself as an option to play doesn't exist. The fact that you didn't know this and made the argument that I "Changed" the setting shows that you DID need this explained to you because you DIDN'T understand it to begin with. This isn't an opinion difference this is a misunderstanding of the facts. What I showed was an example of Rules as Written game that breaks down and doesn't fit the setting of the world that the GAME says you can have, not a "change' of the rules.
Just as Agile showed a breakdown of the rules without because of the well known broken spells of conjure animals and polymorph, but as I would argue that is an issue with those spells that also needs changing.
Apologies if this has already been discussed to death, I didn’t see it quickly. How do people feel about Monsters having their regular weapon damage (e.g. Claws, Slashing) replaced by Force Damage, when in 5e and every edition prior it was Magical Weaponry and sometimes had a specific Magic Bonus for determine what resistance or immunity it could ignore? For myself, I really don’t like it. Honestly, I wish you had Resistance up to X Magical Bonus, or possibly even Immunity depending how on the Monster. But what’s the consensus? Was this already revealed via playtest results?
It was too much crunch in past editions, and resistance to non magical bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing which many creatures have in 5e becomes pointless around level 5 when most of your PC have a magical weapon or magic. I believe 5eR will just have those creatures resistance to all bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing damage. We may still see silver and adamantine overcome this resistance, but just having a +1 sword do it is boring.
Dunno, having all monsters eventually deal force damage really feels immersion breaking to me, especially after past editions. Too many changes can change the game so much it’s not really palatable for gamers that have played more than one edition.
Wait, why would monsters have to deal force damage?
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny.
Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
To clarify, when monsters have either Magical Weapons or have natural weapons that are effectively magical, they deal Force Damage. Same thing with a Monks fists. There’s a number of interesting changes within this revision (I feel 5e Revised is my favorite name for this collection of such) but the ones I actually like are pretty easy to quickly homebrew, while the ones I don’t like are pretty pervasive. It’s getting to the point where I’m not concerned about whether I will or will not pick up the new rules, but how their release will change things for those of us that choose to stick with 5e classic.
Is this a rule that you're proposing yourself? I'm a bit confused.
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny.
Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
Sorry, the Force damage bit seems to be hardwired into One D&D is what I’m saying. You can also find it within the Monsters of the Multiverse, which is vaguely irritating to me but fixable via homebrew. I suspect the new Planescape Book (and possibly Phandelver) will be the last items I purchase from WOTC, not including a subscription so long as the benefits benefit me as a 5e DM.
We are likely to see a lot more monsters with just higher health instead of resistance to bludgeoning, piercing or slashing damage and the monsters that ARE resistant are going to be special for it. It would be even better if there was variety between slashing, piercing and bludgeoning damage with some resistant to one but not the others. I would also LOVE to see a variety of damage types from magic weapons.
I don't see the problem. It makes things a bit simpler and more concise, and the only real drawback I can think of is Rage being less effective at higher levels. What reason do you have to dislike it?
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny.
Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
It makes damage type a little too uniform, which hurts my immersion, and it breaks 40+ years of D&D history. As I stated, I’m still not a fan of the tiered magic item bonuses not mattering in regards to resistance or immunity. I’ve enjoyed AD&D 2nd Edition, both 3rd and 3.5, had a brief fling with 4e (the creativity and world building were amazing) and have mostly enjoyed 5e. I am extremely skeptical of this change amongst others.
Damage type has always been a little too uniform, so I don't see this changing much. The differences between bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing are practically nonexistent, save for skeletons and the feats in Tasha's. I can see how it would hurt your immersion if you're imagining all weapons that deal force damage as just shooting short-range magic missiles instead of actually being used to physically hit things, but I don't think that's how they work.
Every single change is going to break years of D&D history, so it feels silly to complain about this specific change, especially about something so unintegral to the game as when force damage is used.
Magic items with higher to hit and damage bonuses do matter in regards to resistance. Because they'll hit more often and do more damage. Anything more complicated than that would just feel like extra bookkeeping, at least to me.
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny.
Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
Just remove the "magical" concept. Damage types are enough. So then we don't have fire and magical fire, just like physical ones. Then a few exceptions like werewolves getting full damage from silver or magical.
Monster should deal the appropriate damage type for the attack it uses. Claws with force damage? No way.
In fact removing this "magical damage" stuff some features like Barbarian resistance does not become useless at a certain tier.
I have no problem using more extensive resistances ignoring (in most cases) the "magical" thing so the players have to adapt using the appropriate weapon, instead "I have my +1 <weapon> so can do anything".
Then add the feature slayer which ignores resistances for some kind of creature.
The current "resistance/immunity to bludgeoning, piercing, slashing damage unless magical" mechanism has always been pretty awkward and caused issues.
At lower levels it either made monsters much harder than their CR would suggest or skewed things too much in favour of the Spellcasters in the party while the fighters sulked. But by level 5 or so it's generally expected that everyone had magic weapons anyway, so it became pointless and made monsters easier than their CR would suggest.
So I'm all in favour of getting rid of this. The changes so far suggest that some powerful monsters will simply have resistance to bludgeoning, piercing, slashing damage, but nothing suggests this will be a universal trait. A class feature or weapon property that changes damage type (to force, fire or whatever) will get around this, though hopefully it won't sideline fighters in favour of spellcasters too much.
Nothing seen so far suggests that monsters will arbitrarily start doing force damage with claws, so not sure where the OP is getting that from.
I don't find "Resistance to non-magical bludgeoning, piercing, and slashing damage" to be awkward. I think the wording is awkward, but not the result mechanics and effect on play.
Personally, I would just say "resistance to non-magical damage", without regard to the damage type, and bring back that creatures with this feature have "magical natural weapons" for the purpose of overcoming it.
And in the long run, what it really does, is put a bit of a barrier between Tier 1 vs higher tiers, that explains why peasants don't just gang up on a werewolf, etc. If you're before that barrier, then these creatures are a challenge to you. If you've crossed that career barrier (to higher tiers), then you've gotten past that being a challenge. Not really a conceptual problem to me.
Since you do not see the awkwardness of this mechanic lets see if I can help explain it to you. You are playing a low magic setting and want magic items to be particularly rare. Lets also say you want to start out at a higher level like 5 because you want your characters to feel like epic heroes. As your players are leveling you recognize that almost EVERY MONSTER has this "Resistance to non-magical slashing, piercing and bludgeoning damage" which now means you HAVE to give your martial characters some form of magical weapon or it is going to make them feel bad being forever stuck at half damage. It doesn't matter if the story makes sense for the entire party to be running around with a magical weapon they will be. And once they ARE the monster's "Resistance to non-magical slashing, piercing and bludgeoning damage" is basically ignored and might as well not exist.
This is the problem. This is why it is awkward. Because it will force the GM to do things that don't necessarily fit the story AND once it is done the power budget of the monster is being taken up by an ability that doesn't do anything.
By simply removing that effect entirely and just making the monsters tougher, which they did with a lot of revised monsters in MoM. The magic item hand out becomes more freed up and the monsters can feel their proper difficulty.
The fact that I don't agree doesn't mean I don't understand (and thus need it to be explained to me). I understand, I just don't agree with you.
So, you're changing one fundamental premise of the game (magic level of the setting(s)), but unwilling to change another one (the need for magic weapons to overcome the resistances of certain creatures that will be plentiful in said setting).
I think I see the problem right there: unwillingness to make the second change that is a consequence of the first change, assuming you don't actually want those creatures to be extra tough due to the nature of magical rarity. Making such a change (magic level) has consequences. It's the burden of the person making that change to deal with those consequences and further changes.
In contrast, having a CR 1 specter take half damage from a Legendary +3 sword is also really annoying for all the classes that rely on weapons.
I would note that, one problem with just getting rid of non-magical resistances - is that a caster's summons or a Polymorph form is just as powerful as a weapon-using martial. Currently the game balance a higher levels uses non-magical b/s/p resistance to nerf Polymorph, Conjure Animals etc... since they deal non-magical damage vs your martial with a magic weapon that deals magical damage. To maintain that, we will still have the requirement for martials to get magic weapons just that these weapons will always have to do some other kind of damage.
The other problem is that tons of potions / magic items will have to be revised to prevent them granting resistance to force damage, as force damage will be just as powerful a resistance as b/s/p - e.g. potions of resistance.
Ideally, those problematic and overpowered spells can be nerfed in other ways.
A quick search gives four magic items that can grant resistance to force damage. Not exactly "tons". And anyways, what's so scary about having to revise things? The whole point of 1D&D is that it's a revision.
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny.
Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
Changing magical levels isn't an actual change. The various magical levels and access to magical weapons are in the DMG as dependent on the DM and the DM's Ruling of the settings. High fantasy with high magic is as valid as "low magic". It isn't a CHANGE it is just one of the many ways the game SAYS you can play it, but you can't as is currently. Because of the way the Magical weapon rules work the way the game advertises itself as an option to play doesn't exist. The fact that you didn't know this and made the argument that I "Changed" the setting shows that you DID need this explained to you because you DIDN'T understand it to begin with. This isn't an opinion difference this is a misunderstanding of the facts. What I showed was an example of Rules as Written game that breaks down and doesn't fit the setting of the world that the GAME says you can have, not a "change' of the rules.
Just as Agile showed a breakdown of the rules without because of the well known broken spells of conjure animals and polymorph, but as I would argue that is an issue with those spells that also needs changing.